Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The words.... " at the same time ".....!
Was the lord Jesus 100% man and 100%God.... -At the same time. ?


I reject the heresy of adoptionism. If you read the Scriptures given in post # 6, it is IMPOSSIBLE to state, biblically, that at any point Jesus was not God AND man.

https://carm.org/adoptionism


As flesh was he God "at the same time?


What Scripture states IMO that Jesus ceased to be God? When?

When, exactly, was Jesus not ALSO, fully, divine?




.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
this also does not adress the question.

And the answer is simple.. When he "put off" his divinity and became man.

I have often wondered in regard to this question and when this thread started i still wondered. Itmade methink.. Why do we traditionally say he was 100% both AT THE SAME TIME !? When the scripture does not... Its not a sin to ask " is tradition right merely because ithas existed so long? Can it be right when scripture states otherwise ?

In my ownheart the jury is still out onthis question.. But in all honesty,the vote is leaning infavor of tradition being erroneous when balanced against the word ofGod.

You seem to take it personally but shouldnt. We are to study the scriptures to see if these things are so.. And in this case..scripture is beginnig to show me...
- this thing may not be so...
But it takes some harsh objectivity to truley consider it .
our love of tradtion (which can exceed our love of God to the point of idolatry) is a powerful beast to overcome.

I don't take it personally.

Jesus has the attributes of God:
He knows everything (Matthew 16:21; Luke 11:17; John 4:29),
is everywhere (Matthew 18:20; 28:20; Acts 18:10),
has all power (Matthew 8:26–27; 28:18; John 11:38–44; Luke 7:14–15; Revelation 1:8),
depends on nothing outside of himself for life (John 1:4; 14:6; 8:58),
rules over everything (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 1:5; 19:16,
never began to exist and never will cease to exist (John 1:1; 8:58),
and is our Creator (Colossians 1:16).
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I reject the heresy of adoptionism. If you read the Scriptures given in post # 6, it is IMPOSSIBLE to state, biblically, that at any point Jesus was not God AND man.

https://carm.org/adoptionism





What Scripture states IMO that Jesus ceased to be God? When?

When, exactly, was Jesus not ALSO, fully, divine?




.

circular argument . and we know you dont really accept anything unless the lutheran says it . going on your track record .

oh and no one is even suggesting adoptionism.. we have already categorically stated the recognition of Jesus with the father before the foundation of the world ,for by him,the word , all things were created .
so you can turn the broken record off now and move the needle on .
 
Last edited:

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... Continued


In Post #135 on Page 14, Lämmchen offered:
Originally Posted by Pedrito
Two questions sensibly arise here:
1. When was all power given to Jesus? I.e. when did He become almighty?
2. What does alpha and omega ("Alpha and Omega") actually signify in that particular context?
Scripture has already been given to you to show that Jesus is God. He has always been. Which for your question number one...the answer is there is no time that Jesus was not Almighty. He is God.

Number two means he is eternal as Josiah pointed out to you.

It is assumed that the Scripture Lämmchen referred to (at least primarily) was the set of references she presented in Post #4 on Page 1. Those statements of Scripture have been under progressive review. Those reviewed so far have been shown to not support the proposition they were invoked to support – that Jesus is God – unless the required meaning is read into those statements first.

That did not discourage the repetion of those same Scripture references with the same implication in Post #142 on Page 15. Might not the offering of fresh, unequivocal, directly relevant, correctly translated statements penned by God, have been better?

But, we haven't finished the review yet. Maybe we'll find a gem in there somewhere.

And who knows? If we then review Scripture references offered by Josiah (different from Lämmchen's), maybe there will be a treasure or two there.


(Alithis' Post #139 on Page 14 has been duly noted. As have other posts of his.)


Continued ...
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is always treasure in scripture. Proof was provided more than once in this thread by multiple people that Jesus is God and HAS been God and didn't stop being God.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
TWO Natures of Christ.... As affirmed by the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils

I invite you to READ these Scriptures....



1. Jesus is BOTH God/divine and man/human. BOTH. 100%. It's not either/or but both/and. True, his human nature is without sin but that in no sense makes it less human (it makes it more human - the humanity of Adam and Eve before the fall). 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5-6.


2. These two natures are INSEPARABLE and UNITED - like two sides of the same coin. We may be only seeing one side at at given time; only one side might be active in some thing, but both sides are always present because they are inseparable. Two sides of the SAME coin. These are not merged into a new, third reality - but both remain, and both remain united. Where one "side" of the reality is, ergo so "is" the other.


3. While the Incarnation happened in time/space, this unity is beyond that. Read carefully John 1:1 ff, John 8:58, John 17:5, Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Matthew 18:20, Romans 9:5. Thus, we may speak of JESUS being at Creation and JESUS being with us always - and this JESUS has two inseparable natures: God and Man, divine and human. Note: it does NOT say, "The Son was present at Creation" it says "YOU (Jesus) were, etc.


4. There is not a sharp distinction in terms of duties or fruits or attributes or properties. See Luke 9:56 and Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim 2:5 and Hebrews 2:14 (humanity saving), with First John 1:12 and 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 3:15 and Galatians 2:20 (divinity saves), note that First John 1:14 contains both in the same verse. Note JESUS says he had us with us before the world was (John 17:5). JESUS is eternal (Hebrews 13:8), JESUS knows all things (John 21:17). Mary gives birth to GOD with us (Matthew 1:23). JESUS is everywhere (Matthew 18:20). JESUS knows all things (Colossians 2:3). JESUS is all powerful (Matthew 28:18). Miracles done by Jesus reveal HIS glory (John 1:14). Thus, it is unbiblical to insist that ONLY BY ONE NATURE can Christ be this or that.


5. God dwells in CHRIST - the flesh - "in fullness." Colossians 2:9. It's not a partial or sometime kind of thing.



SOME NOTES ......

1. Yet it seems possible for ONE nature to be involved without the others (as if looking at ONE SIDE of the coin - that side being the active side). The humanity of JEsus died on the Cross, God did not. Jesus says, "no one knows - not even the Son of man but only God" (an INTERESTING verse - because if taken literally, Jesus BOTH knew and did not know - suggesting some sense of a lack of communication?) Another case, Luke 2:52 - his humanity increases in knowledge even though his divine nature is all knowing always. The DIVINE nature MAY "communicate" with the human, the human does not communicate with the divine

2. The impeccability of Christ is interesting..... While Catholics (borrowing from Augustine) argue such (nondogmatically) from Jesus not having a human father (sin moving via male DNA) and Mary being without Original Sin just as a back up (lol), I've heard LUtherans argue (again, nondogmatically) that this is a fruit of the communication of attributes: his human nature is without sin by virtue of being "united" with his divine - the divine 'communicating' with the human.



SCRIPTURES....


John 1:1 ff [1:1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
[9] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [15] (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) [16] For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. [17] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.


John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Notice says, "I AM (I.... JESUS).... I WAS before Abraham. Not "The divine nature of me but not the human nature."


John 17:5, And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jesus says "that I - Jesus - I had."


Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,.... And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
Note, God created the world through Jesus; Jesus is the "imprint" of God's nature, Jesus upholds the universe, Jesus made purifcation for sins, Jesus is the same.... NO distinction of natures, NO "The Son did this, the Flesh did that..."


Matthew 18:20, For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Again, note that JESUS is among us, not "The Second Person of the Trinity." Jesus is the God/Man - both/and.


Romans 9:5. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. Note: Jesus is over all.


Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. JESUS is eternal....


John 20:19, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” Note: NO FLESH can walk through walls and doors.... GOD of course can. JESUS (the God/Man did), indicating that what Jesus can do by one nature also involves his other nature. This seems important for the Reformed insistence that Jesus' human nature is in heaven and CANNOT thus be here for this would violate the properties of his human nature. Well..... this violated the properties of his human nature.


Matthew 1:23, They shall call his name Immanuel which means God with us. Note: JESUS' very title here means "God WITH us." Yes, GOD can be in all places at all times, no one disputes that. But Jesus says HE - JESUS - who is also HUMAN is with us. Thus, as in above, properties of one nature can "communicate" or in some way involve the other, since Nicea stressed his two natures are INSEPARABLE.


Matthew 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together, there I am among them. JESUS is omnipresent


Colossians 2:3 Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge


Matthew 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Jesus)


Titus 2:13, "Our great GOD and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us" Jesus is our great God.


John 1:14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth (all referring to JESUS)


I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to accept what Scripture states and yet deny that Jesus is BOTH - fully, inseparably - human AND divine, man and God.



Also see post # 4.




- Josiah
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
TWO Natures of Christ.... As affirmed by the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils

I invite you to READ these Scriptures....



1. Jesus is BOTH God/divine and man/human. BOTH. 100%. It's not either/or but both/and. True, his human nature is without sin but that in no sense makes it less human (it makes it more human - the humanity of Adam and Eve before the fall). 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5-6.


2. These two natures are INSEPARABLE and UNITED - like two sides of the same coin. We may be only seeing one side at at given time; only one side might be active in some thing, but both sides are always present because they are inseparable. Two sides of the SAME coin. These are not merged into a new, third reality - but both remain, and both remain united. Where one "side" of the reality is, ergo so "is" the other.


3. While the Incarnation happened in time/space, this unity is beyond that. Read carefully John 1:1 ff, John 8:58, John 17:5, Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Matthew 18:20, Romans 9:5. Thus, we may speak of JESUS being at Creation and JESUS being with us always - and this JESUS has two inseparable natures: God and Man, divine and human. Note: it does NOT say, "The Son was present at Creation" it says "YOU (Jesus) were, etc.


4. There is not a sharp distinction in terms of duties or fruits or attributes or properties. See Luke 9:56 and Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim 2:5 and Hebrews 2:14 (humanity saving), with First John 1:12 and 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 3:15 and Galatians 2:20 (divinity saves), note that First John 1:14 contains both in the same verse. Note JESUS says he had us with us before the world was (John 17:5). JESUS is eternal (Hebrews 13:8), JESUS knows all things (John 21:17). Mary gives birth to GOD with us (Matthew 1:23). JESUS is everywhere (Matthew 18:20). JESUS knows all things (Colossians 2:3). JESUS is all powerful (Matthew 28:18). Miracles done by Jesus reveal HIS glory (John 1:14). Thus, it is unbiblical to insist that ONLY BY ONE NATURE can Christ be this or that.
5. God dwells in CHRIST - the flesh - "in fullness." Colossians 2:9. It's not a partial or sometime kind of thing.

ans "God WITH us." Yes, GOD can be in all places at all times, no one disputes that. But Jesus says HE - JESUS - who is also HUMAN is with us. Thus, as in above, properties of one nature can "communicate" or in some way involve the other, since Nicea stressed his two natures are INSEPARABLEMatthew 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together, there I am among them. JESUS is omnipresent
Colossians 2:3 Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Matthew 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Jesus)
Titus 2:13, "Our great GOD and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us" Jesus is our great God.
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth (all referring to JESUS)
I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to accept what Scripture states and yet deny that Jesus is BOTH - fully, inseparably - human AND divine, man and God.
- Josiah

if you invite folks to read these scriptures .. and we have ,and we are not opposing them ..no one is opposing anything ,we are having a discussion .
you should try it sometime ..its quit similar to a conversation.
but i note you begin the post with -"'As affirmed by the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils" as if that some how validates scripture ?? lol it doesn't // scripture validates what men teach never the other way around .
your loyalty to your denomination seems to constantly outweigh any other loyalties .. very interesting .

but do you know that two or more parties can sit down and have a conversation about this type of topic and rise up again having not changed anything of the nature of god and his word become flesh and all is well.
it seems to me that ,at times people are far too concentrated on defending their denominational religious stance,as they hold it higher then anything else in their life and are too easily offended when it is challenged .

i have asked a conversational question ,not made a statement . i have asked where does the scripture expressly say .. he is god and man "at the same time " .. it doesn't . that does not mean im saying he isn't or he is.. its means im asking the question .
others are not asking the question they are basically saying - this is how we have been told it is so this is how it is . but the ones who told you "this is how it is " are men .. not GOD . and have lorded a control over you to the point that you are not free to ask the question.

in christ we are free to ask him ANYTHING . No denomination has the right to forbid the asking when the motive is to learn of him to his glory .. he does not become offended by our asking to learn truth . he delights in us when we do . but if we say .. "i have it all right " we are just a walking bundle of puffed up knowledge without understanding.
if our knowledge does not result in our obedience ..it is merely a record against us of our disobedience .
to be free to ask the questions .. one must first realize ..men are not infallible and what they have said in the past does not automatically make it so just because they said it .. it also does not make it automatically wrong just because they have said it . but we were not there at the time they had the discussion that led to their conclusion . so we too have the discussion . but throwing their past conclusion forcefully in our face as something you feel we MUST adhere to ..shows you desire no part in the discussion. .just a desire to impose the conclusions of some long dead men upon the next generation. that is how religious control perpetuates
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
if you invite folks to read these scriptures .. and we have ,and we are not opposing them ..no one is opposing anything ,we are having a discussion .
you should try it sometime ..its quit similar to a conversation.
but i note you begin the post with -"'As affirmed by the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils" as if that some how validates scripture ?? lol it doesn't // scripture validates what men teach never the other way around .
your loyalty to your denomination seems to constantly outweigh any other loyalties .. very interesting .

but do you know that two or more parties can sit down and have a conversation about this type of topic and rise up again having not changed anything of the nature of god and his word become flesh and all is well.
it seems to me that ,at times people are far too concentrated on defending their denominational religious stance,as they hold it higher then anything else in their life and are too easily offended when it is challenged .

i have asked a conversational question ,not made a statement . i have asked where does the scripture expressly say .. he is god and man "at the same time " .. it doesn't . that does not mean im saying he isn't or he is.. its means im asking the question .
others are not asking the question they are basically saying - this is how we have been told it is so this is how it is . but the ones who told you "this is how it is " are men .. not GOD . and have lorded a control over you to the point that you are not free to ask the question.

in christ we are free to ask him ANYTHING . No denomination has the right to forbid the asking when the motive is to learn of him to his glory .. he does not become offended by our asking to learn truth . he delights in us when we do . but if we say .. "i have it all right " we are just a walking bundle of puffed up knowledge without understanding.
if our knowledge does not result in our obedience ..it is merely a record against us of our disobedience .
to be free to ask the questions .. one must first realize ..men are not infallible and what they have said in the past does not automatically make it so just because they said it .. it also does not make it automatically wrong just because they have said it . but we were not there at the time they had the discussion that led to their conclusion . so we too have the discussion . but throwing their past conclusion forcefully in our face as something you feel we MUST adhere to ..shows you desire no part in the discussion. .just a desire to impose the conclusions of some long dead men upon the next generation. that is how religious control perpetuates


See posts 141 and 146.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... Continued


(I've been overseas. Hence the hiatus in this series of posts – posts analysing the applicability of the scripture references provided by Lämmchen in support of the title of this thread.)


As a preliminary aside, let me point out Lämmchen's response to my statements (Post #144 on Page 15) that there may be a verse or two supplied by Lämmchen and Josiah that will prove to be truly relevant. My statements were:
But, we haven't finished the review yet. Maybe we'll find a gem in there somewhere.

And who knows? If we then review Scripture references offered by Josiah (different from Lämmchen's), maybe there will be a treasure or two there.
Lämmchen's response was (Post #145 on Page 15):
There is always treasure in scripture.
There we see a statement of essential truth, issued in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the treasures of Scripture are always smeared when used out of context. The use of deflective statements such as that one, is symptomatic (is always symptomatic) of a stance upon which unwelcome light is being cast.

And as for (Post #145 on Page 15):
Proof was provided more than once in this thread by multiple people that Jesus is God and HAS been God and didn't stop being God.
Not one of the references supplied by Lämmchen as already reviewed, has has offered any such proof when taken in proper context.

And seeing that Lämmchen stated in Post #145 (emphasis mine):
Proof was provided more than once in this thread by multiple people ...
It looks as though I will have to review the "proof" supplied by other people as well.


Now, back to the review proper.


Continued ...
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... Continued


From Lämmchen's Post #4 on Page 1:

depends on nothing outside of himself for life

John 1:4:
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Of course. Jesus was without sin – He had no sin of His own, and had no inherited Adamic sin.

He therefore qualified for ongoing human life on Earth – that special life that would never cease – the state in which our first parents originally existed.

(Where in the Holy Bible does it tell us when, or even that, Adam and Eve would have gone to Heaven had they not sinned?)

That special life provided light in two ways:
1. Through Him, people could see what God was like.
2. Through the sacrifice of that perfect sinless life, he would bestow life on others, delivering them from darkness.

For instance:
Romans 6:23:
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hebrews 2:9:
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God [[by the grace of whom?]] should taste death for every man.
1 Corinthians 15:21:
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
Luke 2:29-32:
29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
(According to Verses 25-28, was Simeon talking to God, or to the child in his arms?)

Isaiah 9:2:
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
Matthew 4:14-16:
14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
15 ...
16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

Therefore, once again we have seen a reference from Scripture presented (in this case John 1:4), which actually offers no support for the proposition being promoted.

(So why not simply present inspired statements from God that actually and clearly do?)

Continued ...
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... Continued


From Lämmchen's Post #4 on Page 1:

depends on nothing outside of himself for life


John 1:4:

Of course. Jesus was without sin – He had no sin of His own, and had no inherited Adamic sin.

He therefore qualified for ongoing human life on Earth – that special life that would never cease – the state in which our first parents originally existed.



Jesus was without sin because He is God. Pulling verses apart from the others that Josiah and I have both listed will only get to heresy instead of the truth of what scripture fully reveals.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lämmchen made an interesting statement in her Post #152 on Page 16:
Pulling verses apart from the others that Josiah and I have both listed will only get to heresy instead of the truth of what scripture fully reveals.

Does anyone know what that statement actually means?

It sounds like one of those significant-sounding, superficial statements that politicians and courtroom lawyers issue to draw attention away from evidence and considerations that threaten their positions. (I think we've all seen them – politicians on the news, and courtroom dramas on TV.)

But let's have a closer look.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we look carefully, Lämmchen's statement seems to be saying that:
1. The careful consideration of individual God-inspired statements of Scripture in their correct context – (statements that have been put forward in support of whatever doctrine) – and thereby understanding with precision what God intended those statements to mean, will lead to heresy.
2. The superficial acceptance of meanings ascribed to those statements when they are taken out of their true context to support existing doctrines, and especially when they are presented in bulk, leads to truth.

I submit that trying to equate the bulk quoting of out-of-context Scripture with "the truth of what scripture fully reveals" is fallacious.

However, starting with a precise understanding of God's Holy Revelation to us, and seeing where that leads – finding out how the pieces (including the God-inspired "Old Testament") fit together into a consolidated, consistent whole – leads to the actual truth as known and propagated by Jesus and the apostles. The Bible calls that "the whole counsel of God".

That "whole counsel of God", which can accurately be termed "apostolic truth", existed in its fullness long before "church councils" dominated by people of pagan background came along.

That apostolic truth had (and has) no place for unscriptural doctrines and concepts such as "the age of accountability" (however expressed), and required no explaining away or ignoring of proclamations made by Jesus that don't fit into the doctrine structures of (at least some) established churches today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems therefore pertinent to continue to put individual scriptures presented by Lämmchen and others, under the microscope, to determine whether or not they actually support what they were put forward to support.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.


See posts # 4 and 91.


Biblically, I think it is impossible to not embrace the two inseparable natures of Jesus - that He is BOTH God and man. And biblically, I find it impossible to support that He is more one than the other. Sure, there is MYSTERY as to how all this "is" and "works" but that's beside the point, what is truth is truth. I think traditional Christianity has been right for these many, many, many centuries in accepting fully what Scripture says. I suspect those that stand with the very ancient heresies in rejecting these Scriptures are a wrong today as they've always been.


Thank you!


- Josiah
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lämmchen made an interesting statement in her Post #152 on Page 16:


Does anyone know what that statement actually means?

It sounds like one of those significant-sounding, superficial statements that politicians and courtroom lawyers issue to draw attention away from evidence and considerations that threaten their positions. (I think we've all seen them – politicians on the news, and courtroom dramas on TV.)

But let's have a closer look.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we look carefully, Lämmchen's statement seems to be saying that:
1. The careful consideration of individual God-inspired statements of Scripture in their correct context – (statements that have been put forward in support of whatever doctrine) – and thereby understanding with precision what God intended those statements to mean, will lead to heresy.
2. The superficial acceptance of meanings ascribed to those statements when they are taken out of their true context to support existing doctrines, and especially when they are presented in bulk, leads to truth.

I submit that trying to equate the bulk quoting of out-of-context Scripture with "the truth of what scripture fully reveals" is fallacious.

However, starting with a precise understanding of God's Holy Revelation to us, and seeing where that leads – finding out how the pieces (including the God-inspired "Old Testament") fit together into a consolidated, consistent whole – leads to the actual truth as known and propagated by Jesus and the apostles. The Bible calls that "the whole counsel of God".

That "whole counsel of God", which can accurately be termed "apostolic truth", existed in its fullness long before "church councils" dominated by people of pagan background came along.

That apostolic truth had (and has) no place for unscriptural doctrines and concepts such as "the age of accountability" (however expressed), and required no explaining away or ignoring of proclamations made by Jesus that don't fit into the doctrine structures of (at least some) established churches today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems therefore pertinent to continue to put individual scriptures presented by Lämmchen and others, under the microscope, to determine whether or not they actually support what they were put forward to support.

I have absolutely no idea why the age of accountability is brought up in here when that's not even remotely connected to the thread?

In defense of what I wrote, in order to determine what one verse says, you cannot just look at it by itself. That's not proper exegesis but instead eisegesis.
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], the lists of scriptural references when taken into context and viewed with other scripture gives proof that tradition is correct as you've stated.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In defense of what I wrote, in order to determine what one verse says, you cannot just look at it by itself. That's not proper exegesis but instead eisegesis. Josiah, the lists of scriptural references when taken into context and viewed with other scripture gives proof that tradition is correct as you've stated.


I agree...... I think the very historic, ecumenical embrace of the two inseparable natures of Christ is simply an affirmation of Scripture - a quite overwhelming, abundant biblical testimony. I think the "problem" is that embracing Scripture leaves us with a "mystery" that to our puny, limited, fallen brain doesn't quite make sense. Throughout Christian history, there have been Christians who have a great problem with mystery. In the (overly blunt) words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "some people just can't leave well enough alone..... some people just can't shut up." They get "stuck" in this "how can this be?" Luther said that "humility is the foundation of sound theology". Scripture calls on us to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." Sometimes God is just bigger than we are. Sometimes God chose NOT to explain everything - even if everything is understandable to us.


IMO, what disturbs me, what I find frightening, is that AGE OLD "heresies" (I use that in the historic sense) are being resurrected by Christian pastors and webmasters who simply are ignorant of the view, ignorant that what they are proclaiming is in fact a view that LONG ago, UNIVERSALLY was rejected and why that happened. Too many Christian leaders these days are just not well trained in Christian theology and history.... so they read some verse (often not only in isolation from the rest of Scripture but in isolation from Christian theology and history)..... appoint SELF as the sole one whom the Holy Spirit leads and the SOLE one responsible for explaining things..... and shout, "Hey, I just read this and WOW!" Perhaps unaware that actually billions of Christians have read that verse before he was even born.... a LOT of them far more educated and aware than they..... every possible "spin" on it has existed for many centuries..... lots of discussion and debate has happened on this long before this guy could even read...... and sometimes, views were endorsed or rejected. We have so many (largely self-appointed) "interpreters" and "teachers" now with the means to communicate their ideas (which THEY claim are new but actually are just ancient reguritated views) with books, websites, utubes, etc. The Bereans were honored in Scripture because they - the listeners, the audience - CAREFULLY checked things out, and thus pulled the rug out from false teachers. It is time again for listeners, readers, audiences to THINK, to EXAMINE, to know sound theology and history. Watch out for the (usually self-appointed) "teacher" who CLAIMS for self that self is uniquely lead, uniquely smart, uniquely insightful - with NEW ideas (that actually aren't; they are more likely ancient heresies!) and with the claim that all should just docilicly bow before them, docilicly swallow whatever they say because they've read a verse! THEY (and no other) is lead by God and so THEY (and no other) know what God meant to say (but didn't). Beware..... be cautious.



My half cent.


- Josiah
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In Post #155 on Page 16, Lämmchen introduced some interesting terminology:
In defense of what I wrote, in order to determine what one verse says, you cannot just look at it by itself. That's not proper exegesis but instead eisegesis.
and followed it with:
@Josiah, the lists of scriptural references when taken into context and viewed with other scripture gives proof that tradition is correct as you've stated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Dictionary.com, exegesis is [[emphasis added]]: "critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible."

And eisegesis is: "an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So apparently, determining the proper context and therefore original meaning of a statement of Scripture, must be classed as eisegesis (even if that original, in-context meaning agrees with other in-context scripture). Similarly, taking a statement out of context, including statements made by the Son of God, and especially when lumped together with other statements taken out of context to support each other, is defined as proper exegesis.

An example of "proper exegesis" (taken from another thread to show that the approach is general, and not confined to this thread) is found in Post #161 on Page 17 of the thread "Name those sins Christ didn't die for".
The Law states that the sinful deserve eternal punishment "Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt. 25:41,46)
It was pointed out that those verses had been taken out of context – taken from a direct proclamation of Jesus pertaining to salvation by works. Six specific questions of clarification were asked regarding that passage. No pointed response was forthcoming, that I noticed.

So what we see there is a clear example of verses being taken out of context, without explanation or apology (once again, unless I missed it), and we see the out-of-context usage being classed as "proper exegesis".

That is of course, unless Lämmchen wishes to own up and confess that she herself is guilty of eisegesis.


(Once again, I am not singling Lämmchen out for particular attention. I have probably pointed that out elsewhere by now. I am merely casting light on some examples of the lamentable (and often deliberate, because not owned up to) misuse of God's Holy Revelation to Mankind.)


In the end, it all boils down to where a person's loyalty really lies.

Does it not?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I am not guilty of eisegesis no matter how much you would like to believe that.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,201
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Many things that are true are not stated explicitly in the holy scriptures.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... Scripture DOES state that Jesus is man and Jesus is God.
 
Top Bottom