Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
77 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,036 Year: 5,148/6,534 Month: 568/794 Week: 59/135 Day: 5/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus teach reincarnation?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 132 of 230 (777626)
02-04-2016 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by NoNukes
02-04-2016 11:13 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
jaywill, this argument is particularly weak.

No it is not a weak argument. It is really accumulative point adding to many of the points mentioned in that link to CARM - https://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god.

Of the points mentioned in that article I already, in the course of this discussion, used some of those passages. I used Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 1:3-4; and 1 Cor. 15:47.

I added to those already discussed passages Paul admitting that he was a blasphemer to speak evil of Jesus. It was never my intention to resort to every evidence in every post on Christ being God.

However, the statement I wrote was not a rigorously good definition of the word "blasphemer."

quote:

Just saying that Paul blasphemed is not a very strong argument.

In an accumulative sense, given the other evidences of Paul's teaching, it is a strong argument. Since, LNR has seen the arguments above, and perhaps still is unpersuaded, I added First Timothy 1:13.

But if you're unimpressed with your own references at https://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god I can easily see that you'd think First Timothy 1:13 isn't significant either.

quote:

Surely there are more direct statements from Paul about Lord Jesus.

The end of the article at https://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god had a significant footnote.

" It is interesting to note that Paul never systematically defends his views of Jesus (Christology). He takes his devotion and belief in the divinity of Jesus for granted in the Churches to which he writes. "

I already pointed this out to LNR. When I discussed Romans 8:9-11 I told him that this was not a statement of systematic theology. But it experiential and proves that the Spirit of God to Paul was Christ and was also the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.

Your phrase "more direct statements" I take to mean more systematic defense of a more doctrinal kind of debate.

If you cannot grasp the significance of Paul saying that Christ who indwells the believers is also the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead, then you're missing how strong an indication it is of Paul regarding Jesus as God Himself.

quote:

Would it not be blasphemy to spit on God's plan for our salvation, regardless of the details regarding Jesus and his divinity?

I think Paul was not just saying he did nasty things to Christians. I think he is saying that the One who appeared to Him, he instantly recognized as the Lord God. And he had said insulting things about this Lord Jesus, blaspheming God.

" And he fell on the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

And he [Paul] said, Who are You, Lord ? And He said. I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (Acts 9:4-5)

I have no doubt that at that moment Paul realized that the Lord God Himself was speaking to him, blinding him with a light beyond the sun - "And he said, Who are You, Lord"

No, I do not think Paul meant any old "lord" or dignitary or person who deserved respect. I believe that the One whom he now was told he was persecuting was God, his Lord.

In Timothy he admits that he had been a blasphemer against this "Lord" .

quote:

Or viewed another way, your argument is that blasphemy consists only of statements that deny God's divinity. Surely that is wrong. Surely Paul viewed his persecution of Christians as blasphemy.

No, my argument was that in this case, he had spoken evil of God Himself in speaking evil of Jesus. The first mention of the sin of blaspheming, I think, is in Leviticus 2310 where it spoke of the son of an Israelite woman who "blasphemed the Name and cursed" (Lev. 24:11)

That perhaps other forms of blasphemy could be committed is worth looking into. IMO, THIS is the form of blasphemy Paul was now confessing to. He had spoken evil of Jesus the One who was the Lord whom he persecuted.

When Paul says he was "an insulting person" (1 Tim. 1:13) I think he means he insulted God.

When he says he acted "being ignorant, I acted in unbelief" he meant he did not believe that this Jesus was the Lord God Himself.

" ... Who are You, Lord? ... I am Jesus, whom you persecute."

quote:

I had not given this idea much thought. I have always taken for granted Paul's belief in the divinity of Jesus. But apparently this concept is difficult to show directly. The link below is to an argument making the case that Paul believed that Jesus was God.

https://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god


It may allude you because of Paul's usual frequent way of emphasizing that God was being imparted to and into the Christians. In other words, he spends much time to talk about the subjective experience of God as their life. God, in much of the NT, is the imparted God to be indwelling - the dispensed God to be living in man.

If you realize this emphasis it is easier to see that Jesus is God wanting to be dispensed into man.

Here we see God the Father is in them.

"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

The God Who is over all and IN ALL (all the members of the Body of Christ) is Jesus Christ in them too.

"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith"

The God and Father Who is in the Christians is also the Christ making His home in them, in their hearts (Eph. 3:17) .

The God Who is "over all" is the Triune God. And He is also Christ Who is in them (Eph. 3:17) .

Christ being IN them also makes them "the habitation [or dwelling place] of God in spirit" (2:22)

Much of Paul's speaking is about God imparted, God dispensed, God come to indwell, God to be the One living within as divine life. There is much writing along that line. And that exemplifies Paul's revelation that God is Jesus Christ.

quote:

Assuming that the scripture cited there are the verses making the strongest case, and maybe that assumption is bad, the best evidence seems to be verses where Paul refers to Jesus as Lord.

Good evidence is as I have stated above also. The dwelling place of God in spirit or the habitation of God indicates that God dwells within human beings. And He does so by means of being Jesus Christ making His home in their hearts through faith.

Christ comes in and God comes in.
Christ lives within and God lives within.

So Romans 8 also indicated that the One indwelling the believers is the Spirit of God Who is the Spirit of Christ Who is Christ Himself. And this indwelling One, is also "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead." (Rom. 8:9-11)

quote:

But Lord has many meanings.

Paul says that to the Christians, "to us" who believe in Christ, there is One particular Lord among many so-called lords.

" For even if there are so-called gods, ...even as there are many gods and many lords,

Yet to us there is one God, the Father, out from whom are all things, and we are unto Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through Him." ( 1 Cor. 8:5,6) .

So it is mysterious yet experiential. God is indwelling those who confess Jesus is the Lord. The Spirit of God indwelling us is Christ indwelling us.

quote:

And there are just as many references to Jesus as the son of God. Trinitarians of course think these mean the same thing, but the correctness of Trinity doctrine is fairly difficult to demonstrate.

The Trinity as a doctrine is not only difficult to explain but likely impossible to fully do so. The Trinity is not difficult to experience and enjoy. And the Romans 8 passage AND the Ephesians 4 passage were more on the side of experiencial rather than systematic debate.

Again, CARM's good article included this in the final footnote -

" It is interesting to note that Paul never systematically defends his views of Jesus (Christology). He takes his devotion and belief in the divinity of Jesus for granted in the Churches to which he writes.

I might not say Paul "never" does so. But I would say more often Paul speaks in terms of the believer's experience and participation in God in a subjective way.

Most people arguing that Jesus is not God want to see straightforward systematic theological formulas in the NT stating "Jesus is God".

What we see a lot of is that "God in you is Jesus." Or we see "Jesus in you is God." And the audience seems to know this.

quote:

Paul says for example that there is " but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ". In context with all of the verses that speak of Jesus as the Son of God, I find the issue difficult to resolve textually based solely on what Paul says.

Ask God for more experience of what Paul is speaking about. That's more than fair.

quote:

Perhaps there is no consistent answer, and perhaps that is the reason why different religious sects profess to follow Jesus yet come up with different answers.

I don't think it is that significant that every group does not use the exact same words. We're speaking of Someone who is unsearchably rich. Words cannot exhaust how wonderful He is. Nothing can compare to Him. No one can compete with how wonderful He is.

And the Apostle Paul prays that the eyes of our hearts would be enlightened to see the revelation of the Triune God becoming our mutual as Christians inheritance. I mean, we inherit God, and God inherits us - dwelling within us as eternal life.

"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him,

The eyes of your heart having been enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, etc. etc. " (Eph. 1:17 - 23)

It is understandable that some use this passage and others use another. What is unfortunate is the different appreciations would give rise to divisions of sects in the Body of Christ. That is a tragedy.

But that there are many ways of affirming that Christ is God is understandable. If it were only a matter of a mathematical like formula then probably the NT would not consist of 27 books.

The link https://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god is definitely worth reading.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2016 11:13 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2016 4:50 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 134 of 230 (777647)
02-05-2016 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by NoNukes
02-04-2016 4:50 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Why didn't you address any of my complaints about the strength of your argument?

Much of the post dealt with the validity of the argument, particularly Paul's experience in the book of Acts. You will likely to think its a weak argument.

Maybe you consider very much of the New Testament as a weak argument.

quote:
Then let me correct you. I am asking for textual statements having less ambiguity than merely saying Paul blasphemed when attacking Christianity and thus Jesus is God because 'blasphemy'.

I didn't mention Christianity at all.
Christ said "Why do you persecute Me."

Who was that "Me" ? I said Paul realized that it was the Lord God.

quote:

Some of the statements at the link I provided are examples where the implication that Jesus is God far more direct than your argument,

Go with the discussion in that article then.
That is no loss to me personally.

But it seemed like you were still wavering about the article's points.

quote:

and yet still somewhat problematic. And that's even given that I accept Jesus divinity.

Do you accept the divinity of Jesus ?
If so, why do you accept the divinity of Jesus ?

quote:

Yeah, I can grasp just fine. How about if you make a better argument?

Tell me about the best argument that causes you to accept Jesus' divinity.

What is it ?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2016 4:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2016 9:40 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 137 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2016 9:48 AM jaywill has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 135 of 230 (777648)
02-05-2016 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by LamarkNewAge
02-03-2016 6:03 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Jesus mentioned reincarnation in more New Testament spots than the entire Old Testament (as protestants consider such) verses/spots covering resurrection beliefs.

Additionally, Jesus mentioned reincarnation more times than Paul (or any New Testament text outside Matthew and Luke) mentioned the virgin birth. The virgin birth wasn't mentioned in Mark or John or Acts or in any of the 13 letters claiming to be Pauline.

At least Jesus seemed to predict that reincarnation would be difficult to swallow. For those with "eyes to see" implies few would see exactly what he was teaching.


LNR,

On the mountain where Jesus appeared transfigured and with Elijah and Moses, God did not allow Peter to consider them on the same level. If you remember when Peter wanted to make three tabernacles - one for Elijah, one for Moses, and one for Christ, his foolishness was divinely interrupted like this:

"While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice out of the cloud, saying,

This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5)

Every other significant servant of God was overshadowed by the uniqueness of the Son of God. God did not treat the three as co-equal Avatars or co-equal reincarnations. God made certain that the disciples understood that NO ONE but NO ONE could be on the same level as the Son of God.

After the solemnity and fear of the moment, they saw no one except Jesus only.

" And when the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were greatly frightened.

And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, Arise, and do not be afraid. And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone." (vs. 6-8)

What do you think about the fact that the Divine Majesty would not allow ANYONE to be considered on the same level of importance to Jesus ?

" This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight. Hear Him! " (v.5)

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : typo on hear


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-03-2016 6:03 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 140 of 230 (777686)
02-05-2016 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Admin
02-05-2016 9:56 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
BLASPHEMY (speak, reviling) Dishonoring and reviling the name, work, or being of God by word or deed. It is sometimes translated "cursed" or "profaned" (1Ki. 21:10, 13; Isa. 52:5; Eze: 20:27; 36:20). Death by stoning was the penalty (Lev. 24:16). See CURSE

I find it helpful. Thanks.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 02-05-2016 9:56 AM Admin has seen this message

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 141 of 230 (777688)
02-05-2016 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
02-05-2016 10:50 AM


Re: (Un) Conspicuous Appearances?
quote:
On the contrary, I welcome any criticism of what I've said.

But you don't have any. Your only response was, "I belief, I believe, I believe...." Say something substantive and watch me agree with you.


So to you to "believe" is beggarly and weak ?
I mean do you consider that if someone "believes" then that which is "believed" simply MUST not be true ?

IE. "Oh, you believe. Well, if you have to BELIEVE, then that means what is BELIEVED is unsure and probably not reality."

Perhaps to you, "belief" is like a poor stepchild. "Oh, you poor, poor fellow. You only have your belief. Now me, I have mathematical certainty and science and all this really solid stuff! "

Well, the Bible tells us upfront in no uncertain terms, that these things about God are a matter of our believing His word.

You could consider "belief" in God's word as necessarily a humbling matter.
You can consider "faith" as God's way to bridge the, perhaps infinite gap, between what we are as limited creations and what He is as the eternal unlimited uncreated Person.

Someday, you should get a good concordance of the New Testament out and look up all the verses in the Gospel of John on the word "believe" . Maybe a slight change in your attitude serve you well.

A concluding verse in John's Gospel -

"Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book.

But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:30,31)

Yes, I believe. But it is not a blind leap of believing. It is a believing in which a confirming experience of having "life in His name" assures me that I AM on the right track to believe in Jesus, the Son of God.

My experience as a Christian has been believing with a real sense of confirmation that He in Whom I believe is reality.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 02-05-2016 10:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 02-06-2016 10:53 AM jaywill has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 142 of 230 (777704)
02-06-2016 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
02-05-2016 9:40 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
The New Testament is a great argument for the concepts it teaches. However, some points of doctrine that various groups of Christians believe are essential, are not clearly taught in the New Testament. For those concepts, the New Testament provides ambiguous and sometimes contradictory answers. I've seen you and others twist in the wind and deny that some verses are contrary to some doctrines you insist on.

Would you give me an example of where I twisted in the wind some verses contrary to some doctrine I insisted on ?

Give me your strongest example from this discussion ? Where did I twist something to deny a contradiction to something I said was en essential doctrine ?

quote:

On the relationship between God and Jesus, we have verses that clearly present a Father and Son relationship between the two with strong indications of the two of them being separate,

The discussion I have labored on and will probably do so again, shows that though Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, they are not separate. This was shown in the experiencial passage that the Spirit of God was also the Spirit of Christ which was also Christ Himself.

Romans 8:9-11 suggest that the one in whom God dwells cannot detect any difference of separation between the Three of the Trinity.

Do you find me to be saying that "twist[ing] in the wind" something ? I am quoting the Apostle Paul's teaching.

Did I twist something about God when I said that it was probably impossible to explain fully the Trinity but was not difficult to experience God ? Was that twisting ?

quote:

and other verses that are argued to say that Jesus is God. People differ on the interpretation of those verses.

That's fine. My main point was that to the one who has the happy experience of receiving Jesus to be the INDWELLING One as in Romans 8, he can detect no separation between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree on any level that this is both experiencially so and apparently so from what Paul wrote in Romans 8:9-11 ?

It seems to me that if I said the Trinity could be fully explained THEN I would have to twist paradoxical passages which did not agree with some particular aspect I thought essential.

I do consider the indwelling of the Triune God for man's experience to be essential to the Christian indeed. But that the Trinity is mysterious or has paradoxical or even seemingly contradictory concepts about Him, I have not once denied here.

I have no need to twist. I only have need to confess, as I have, that the Trinity is probably impossible to fully explain.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2016 9:40 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 2:25 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 145 of 230 (777720)
02-06-2016 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
02-06-2016 2:25 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
No. It was not a productive thing to say and I should not have made the comment. I apologize for saying it.

Accepted.

quote:

jaywill:
The discussion I have labored on and will probably do so again, shows that though Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, they are not separate.

Nonukes:
That is what you are attempting to show. It is a matter of opinion as to whether you have been successful.


" And the Lord is the Spirit ..." (2 Cor. 3:17a)

I interpret that to mean that the Lord is the Spirit.
How do you interpret that ?

If I so interpret that the Lord is the Spirit would that not explain why Paul uses the Spirit of God and Christ interchangeably in Romans 8:9-11?

quote:

I don't believe it is possible to make the showing you are attempting, so lack of success is not completely your fault.

Is the New Testament also at fault for saying -

"And the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." ?

Explain how I have failed to show that the Lord is the Spirit but the New Testament has not in informing me that " ... the Lord is the Spirit "

Why do I have a lack of success when I quote the plain words of the New Testament.

quote:

For example, some people might believe an instance of God speaking of His Son, with pride, and in the third person, is absolutely conclusive on the issue.

If you are referring to Matthew 17:5 where a majestic voice said -

"This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found my delight. Hear Him!"

I have not now nor previous had any intention to deny -

quote:
" ... an instance of God speaking of His Son, with pride, and in the third person, is absolutely conclusive on the issue. "

Did I deny that it was God speaking to His Son ?

How about I believe this and also that "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) ?
Am I twisting things to believe both ?
The Bible says both.

I can detect no separation between the Father and the Son when I enjoy the indwelling Person of God.

quote:

jaywill:
Romans 8:9-11 suggest that the one in whom God dwells cannot detect any difference of separation between the Three of the Trinity.

Nonukes:
Correct. It "suggests" but does not prove.


Good enough. "Suggest" or "prove" ... don't misdirect your blame to me.
I just am happy to believe all that the Scripture has taught me in this.

What do you think is the suggestion of this passage -

" the last Adam became a life giving Spirit " (1 Cor. 15:45)

What do you think it proves when the NT says -

" For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ... " (2 Cor. 4:5a)

Yet above it says - "And the Lord is the Spirit ... " (3:17a) .

Does this suggest to you why Paul uses "the Spirit of God" interchangeably with "Christ" in Romans 8:9-11 ?

quote:

A reading of those verses that would indicate otherwise is to consider Paul as using an analogy between the Spirit of Jesus dwelling in his believers and the Spirit of God which raised Jesus. In particular 8:11 seems to literally express a First Person->Third Person relationship wherein God resurrected Jesus rather than Jesus resurrecting himself.

How about I believe both? I mean God the Father raised Jesus and Jesus raised Himself.

How about along with it saying God raised Him I also accept that He had the authority to lay down His life and He had the authority to take it up again also ?

" For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.

I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." (John 10:17,18)

How about I just trust God Who has uttered both things ? Jesus said He would raise up His slain body in three days -

"Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." ( John 2:19)

This would explain why the Apostle Paul would use interchangeably that the One indwelling the believers is "Christ" and "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead."

quote:

Further, I find it nearly impossible to read 8:17 which makes us God's joint heirs with Jesus as not stating a separation between Father and Son. If there is actually no separation it is despite rather than according to the text.

The theological term coinherance is useful. It means that One lives in the Other. It means within This One that One lives. And within that One this One lives.

The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father and they come as the Holy Spirit - being the Divine "WE" to indwell the lovers of Christ.

" Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him,

and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

That would certainly explain why the coming into man of the Holy Spirit is the coming in of the Father and His Son as the Divine "We" to make an abode with the Christian.

You could say that the "Spirit of God, ... the Spirit of Christ, ... Christ, and the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" are One mysterious indwelling God Who is also a divine "We".

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 2:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 8:08 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 147 of 230 (777742)
02-07-2016 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by NoNukes
02-06-2016 8:08 PM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
That explains how you resolve a textual issue in your own mind. But the evidence does not come from the text, but from an idea you have before looking at the text. However you came to your conclusion, it probably was not from reading 8:11.

My attitude is one of finally realizing that I do not HAVE to be able to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible on the Triune God's mysterious nature. Rather than use one passage to suppress the truth of another, I trust that both are true.

This is more a surrender to the words of Scripture after a long period of seeing Christian brothers debate verse against verse.

And once again, subjectively, neither I nor the audience of the Roman letter can practically detect any separation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there. Subjective experience is important. It is very important.

You only have one "Person" Who indwells the believers there. That is one "Person" with interchangeable titles.

quote:

jaywill:
The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father and they come as the Holy Spirit - being the Divine "WE" to indwell the lovers of Christ.

Nonukes:
I don't see how this addressed the point, which is that the most direct reading of the text actually suggests something quite different. I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is not God. I'm only suggesting that it is not completely clear what Paul's thinking on the issue is.


On the point of verse about being co-heirs with Christ, I may not have sufficiently considered your point and will revisit it. Off the top of my head I think you spoke to verse 17.

I'll look at that again.

quote:
Further, I find it nearly impossible to read 8:17 which makes us God's joint heirs with Jesus as not stating a separation between Father and Son. If there is actually no separation it is despite rather than according to the text.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2016 8:08 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2016 7:20 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 149 of 230 (777763)
02-07-2016 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
02-07-2016 7:20 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
I am sure that is exactly the method that people use to come up with understandings that are completely different from your own. And it is impossible to tell from the text who is correct.

So we throw up our hands and resign ourselves that it is "impossible to tell from the context who is correct" ?

Now what ? We don't be too pushy ? We dare not teach or fellowship the "impossible to tell" something passages ? We remain suspicious of each other that nothing should be believed too much ?

quote:

I never claimed that any passage of the Bible was not correct.

I apologize if I seemed to say that about you falsely.

quote:

In fact, if we assume that they are all correct, then the question becomes how do we reconcile apparent conflicts and what is our starting point for resolution. There should be a way to do a text first, doctrine second reading. If not, then your doctrine is not grounded in scripture.

I think the spirit and tone of the chapter is experience and enjoyment of God Himself.
What understanding enhances that, I think you should go for. Hold fast the Head - Christ. It enriches my Christian walk to see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are indwelling me, giving life, being the realm to walk in and live in.

Concerning textural difficulties, I did write above that it was difficult for translators to know if the human spirit is meant or the Holy Spirit is meant in certain passages. And I gave what I think is the best way IMO to understand it. Actually I went through much show the obscurity in this as to what Paul may have meant.

If you want to emphasize the separateness of the Three of the Trinity in verses 9 - 11 rather than their coinherence, go ahead. I will continue with a clear conscience, to show people how the labels are used interchangeably.

Do you agree to this? Or is there a need for one of us to tell the other to STOP explaining Romans 8:9-11 in some manner ?

I don't sense the need to oppose you saying it is impossible to tell what Paul meant, if you want to. I remain enthusiastic that this passages shows one mysterious three-one God dispensed into His believers to be life to them.

Don't be too bothered if you see me labor the point again with another poster.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2016 7:20 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 2:47 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 151 of 230 (777776)
02-08-2016 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 2:47 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
The things on which all Christians should agree are fairly small in number.

Do you see a need to, kind of, police talk among Christians ? Or should we here flag talk of Christians to non-Christians about things not universally agreed upon by Christian brothers. I mean to raise the matter "Not all Christians agree on that point" ?

I see you have some 7,671 posts on the Forum. Maybe you said something about a matter about which all Christians are not in agreement.

I hope you will allow me the freedom to express enthusiasm about a matter I think I can pretty well establish as a helpful understanding of a Bible teaching.

The unity among Christian brothers is living in the realm of this indwelling Christ. He Himself is the oneness, really. When He comes into a man the whole Triune God comes into a man. Romans 8:9-11 very nicely reveals that.

My next post will say something about Romans 8:17.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 2:47 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 9:58 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 153 of 230 (777779)
02-08-2016 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 9:58 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Not sure what the point of your question is.

I'll admit that I am not a fan of telling people who are doing their best to follow Christ that they are not real Christians based on some doctrinal point that is not even scriptural. But policing talk? How could I do that?


Did I tell someone here they were not a real Christian ?

quote:

If what you are saying is that you want a free hand to comment on some matter without a response, I don't think I owe you that.


lol. Okay Nonukes.

Now to Romans 8:17

"And if children, heirs also; on the one hand, heirs of God; on the other, joint heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with Him that we may also be glorified with Him."

Here again, I see distinction but not separation. This probably involves a limitation of the human language. Maybe some would argue that distinction is separation and visa versa.

But given the whole context of the Bible, heirs of God and, on the other hand, joint heirs of Christ, still speaks of one three-one God.

I would like to know your opinion about something here. When you read the phrase "heirs of God" do you think that means God is the one inherited? Or do you think it means the believers are inheritors who belong to God ?

That is a genuine question. Do you have a leaning one way or the other about - "heirs of God" ?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 9:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 10:30 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 155 of 230 (777783)
02-08-2016 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 10:30 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
It clearly does not mean God inherited. That's why the joint heirs with Jesus is problematic.

But why are you so sure that it cannot mean that God is the one inherited ?
You're as bad as I am !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 10:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 10:45 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 157 by Admin, posted 02-08-2016 10:57 AM jaywill has taken no action

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 158 of 230 (777787)
02-08-2016 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 10:45 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Because the text states otherwise. The text says that Christ inherits from God and we inherit jointly with Christ.

Interesting.

quote:

At some point it is necessary to actually give words some meeting. What is an heir and what does it mean to be joint heirs? These are terms with ordinary and quite literal meanings.

...

I'd like to see you make a case for God inheriting from himself.


That I may get to latter, because that is not what I was asking about.

This passage definitely cannot exclude the truth of saved men inheriting God as their inheritance. It must include that.

Here's why. The Holy Spirit is God. And Paul says that the growing Christians have "the firstfruits of the Spirit". That is they are enjoying something of God by means of His indwelling Holy Spirit. That is God the Spirit has become an initial enjoyment they possess.

" ... but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit ... "(v.23a)

Paul's audience have as their possession "the firstfruits of the Spirit" . This they have as a foretaste of a fuller taste to come. This they have of God as a kind of appetizer of a full course to be theirs at a future time.

Here he speaks of the fuller enjoyment of God the Holy Spirit to come -

" ... but we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we groan in ourselves eagerly awaiting sonship, the redemption of our bodies."

What he is saying is that the Christians, in their immaterial part, in their spirit and soul, today enjoy the inheritance of the Holy Spirit in that part of their beings. But they "eagerly await" this enjoyment to spread even into their physical bodies. That is they await the foretaste they inherit to expand to the fuller taste in their resurrected and glorified bodies.

This succeeding "fruit" of the Spirit will expand to be a fuller enjoyment known as "the redemption of our body". God starts to be possessed within the spirit of man. God continues to grow in the soul of man. God finally swallows up the body of man to fully saturate the saved man in the divine life.

So "heirs" of God has to include the meaning of possessing God Himself. The "firstfruits of the Spirit" is inherited in the church age. The redemption of the body as a continuation of the work of the Spirit of God, is eagerly looked forward to at the second coming of Christ.

Not only this, but to have God as our "Daddy" or our "Abba" - our own dear Father, sweetly and intimately, is for the Christian to inherit God Himself.

" For you have not received a spirit of slavery bringing you into fear again, but you have received a spirit of sonship in which we cry, Abba, Father !

The Spirit Himself bearing witness with our spirit [edited] that we are children of God." (vs. 15,16)

Formerly, these people were in a kind of slavery. That is laboring to do the best they could to be well pleasing to God through works of the law. Now they have been born of God to become His children. The life of God has been imparted into them. Now they can cry out in the most intimate fellowship with God -

"Daddy, my own Daddy! Abba Father. Now I have You, God, as my dear Abba Father. "

This surely is moving fallen sinners from being alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18) into an intimate "organic" joining of their innermost beings to God making Him their dear and sweet "Abba, Father".

They have become heirs of God Himself. The phrase "heirs of God" cannot possibly exclude that sinners receive God as their Father in coming to Jesus Christ.

I hope to speak to "joint heirs with Christ" in a subsequent post.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : Left out words from verse 16 "with our spirit"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 10:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 11:30 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 160 of 230 (777789)
02-08-2016 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 11:30 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Even though I have no idea what you mean by inheriting God, the idea is not excluded by 8:17 which does not detail what is inherited.

The Trinity is about God dispensing His riches through Christ, by the Spirit, to the believers.

" He will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine and will declare it to you.

All that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I have said that He receives of Mine and will declare it to you." (John 16:14,15)

All that that Father has is the possession of the Son. And the Holy Spirit will convey all these riches to the believers in the Son. Do you see a transmission of an eternal inheritance of God Himself into the believers ?

God the Father has. God the Son receives. God the Spirit conveys all this wealth to the believers in Christ.

In Romans 8 the believers inherit Christ the Son and with Christ the Son "all things".

"Indeed, He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things? " (v.32)

Of course "all things" there include even negative things which God causes to work out for His sovereign will over the sons He is perfecting.

All things, mean all the past, all that has happened to the believers, all things good or bad that God is able in His eternal purpose to cause to work on behalf of the perfecting of His children.

" And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (v.28)

The believers inherit God Himself as their Father.
The believers inherit all things to be used by God for their growth and transformation into the image of the Firstborn Son Christ (v.29).
The believers inherit the restored creation, brought back from the slavery of corruption.

They inherit the divine life in every part of their being eventually.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 11:30 AM NoNukes has seen this message

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 161 of 230 (777790)
02-08-2016 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
02-08-2016 11:30 AM


Re: But you reject Hebrews 11 jaywill.
quote:
Isn't this your third announcement that you would get to my question?

I don't know the count.

Above I wrote about the three-one God still being revealed in the believers being co-heirs with Christ.

What is going on there is that to the present time - they are heirs of God.
To a future time they will be co-heirs with Christ.

To be co-heirs with Christ is however conditional. There is an "IF" related to being co-heirs with Christ.

"And if children, heirs also; on the one hand, heirs of God;

on the other joint heirs with Christ, IF INDEED ... we suffer with Him that we may also be glorified with Him." (v.17)

If you study the chapter carefully, you should see that the suffering is to MATURE the children into grown up sons. The suffering drives them deeper and deeper into Christ, to live by Christ.

The suffering is used by God to give us the incentive to depend upon Christ. As we depend upon the indwelling Lord Jesus, He spreads more and more of His nature into our souls. That spreading of His life into our souls grows children up. And as a result the children are matured to be in a position to share the coming kingdom of Christ along with Him as co-heirs.

The process can be postponed. The process cannot be stopped.
The process can be prolonged. The process cannot be altogether halted.

This we can ascertain with other portions of the Bible.

Here at the conclusion of the Bible we all the children finally as sons inheriting God and with God the blessings of the new heaven and new earth.

"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)

Heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ is the destiny of the Christians. But I have a feeling that I still am not relating this enough to the three-one God for you.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 11:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2016 3:34 PM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022