One Died For All

[Alter2Ego]

Thanks . ."flesh" in Paul means the natural body before the resurrection, not the resurrection body which can enter heaven.

Jesus said he would be with the people for only a short time and then he would go to the one who sent him. (Jn 7:31-33)
At the empty tomb, he told Mary that he was returning to his Father and her Father, to his God and her God (Jn 20:17).
That's heaven.
.

Clare73:

Until you can present scripture that says the resurrected body can enter heaven, you are stuck with 1 Corinthians 15:50.

"What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever." (1 Corinthians 15:50 -- New Living Translation)

QUESTION #1 TO CLARE73: Was Jesus a spirit creature or a fleshly creature before he came to earth?

I will watch for your response to my above question.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 

[Alter2Ego]

Post ignored. You said that giving an analogy was invalid, and then you proceeded to devise an analogy based on human parents. Just as you ignored my analogy, I ignore yours.

JAL:

Your problem is that you are not interested in being corrected by scripture. The example I gave you about your direct parents is hardly a mere analogy since it matches up exactly with what has happened with the first man, Adam, versus all of his offspring aka all humanity.

Your attitude comes across as argumentative just for argument's sake. I am not interested in having that type of discussion with anyone here, at this website. I have other fish to fry.

Alter2Ego

 

[JAL]

JAL:

Your problem is that you are not interested in being corrected by scripture. The example I gave you about your direct parents is hardly a mere analogy since it matches up exactly with what has happened with the first man, Adam, versus all of his offspring aka all humanity.

Your attitude comes across as argumentative just for argument's sake. I am not interested in having that type of discussion with anyone here, at this website. I have other fish to fry.

Alter2Ego

Sorry but you can't just ignore my analogy and then give your own.

 

[JAL]

The consequence of sin is death to all of us, because we commit sins due to the imperfection we inherited from Adam.

What sin? What sin did infants commit, causing them to suffer starvation, diseases, and fatal injuries in the womb?

 

[Clare73]

Clare73:

None of the scriptures you provided above say anything resembling Trinity.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Post #501 demonstrates that Jesus the Son is God.
We know that the Father is God.
That leaves demonstration that the Holy Spirit is God.

1) The NT shows three divine agents, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the work of salvation:
a) Father, Son and Holy Spirit at its beginning (Lk 1:35, at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Mt 3:16-17) and in the work of atonement (Heb 9:14),

b) the Holy Spirit completing the work of the Father through the Son (the work of salvation)--Ac 2:38- 39; Ro 8:26; 1Co 2:4-13--vv.4-6; Eph 1:3-14--v.14, 2:13-22--v.18; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2),

c) the only way to enter the kingdom of the Father is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:1-15--vv.5, 15-15).

2) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are bracketed together as the triune name (singular) of God (Mt 28:19).
a) Paul uses all three interchangeably in 1Co 12:4-6,
b) they are linked in prayer for divine blessing in 2Co 13:14,
c) they are linked in pronouncement of divine blessing in Rev 1:4-5.

3) The close connection in the NT between Father and Son, Father and Spirit, and Son and Spirit point to a co-equal relationship; i.e.,
a) "The Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit". . .the Lord (Jesus) who is the Spirit (Ro1:7, 1Co 1:3, 2Co 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2,; Php 1:2; 1Th 1:1, 3:11; 2Th 1:2, 8, 12, 2:16, 3:5; Ro 8:27; Gal 4:6; 2Co 3:16-18).
The Spirit is one with Jesus in the unity of the Godhead. The Lord (Jesus) works in men through the Spirit; i.e., the Son and Spirit are co-equal divine beings.

b) The Father who will send the Spirit (Jn 14:26), as it was the Father who sent the Son (Jn 5:23, 36).
The Father will send the Spirit "in my name," as Jesus' deputy, doing Jesus' will, acting as his representative and with his authority (Jn 14:26).
As Jesus came in his Father's name (Jn 5:43), acting as his Father's agent, speaking the Father's words (Jn 12:49-50, 14:24), doing the Father's works (Jn 4:34, 5:36, 10:25; 17:4) and bearing witness throughout to the One who sent him,
so would the Spirit come in Jesus' name, to act in the world as the agent and witness of Jesus (Jn 15:26).
It is the Son who will send the Spirit "from the Father" (Jn 15:26).
As the Father sent the Spirit into the world, so the Son will send the Spirit into the world (Jn 16:7).
So the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father.

c) The Son is subject to the Father (for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name--Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father (for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name--Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father (for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father--Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

d) So Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in revealing the mystery of the Trinity--the heart of the Christian faith in God.
That mystery is three separate and distinct Persons, and one God--the Son doing the will of the Father, and the Spirit doing the will of the Father and the Son.

e) The NT throughout presents the Son and Holy Spirit as divine agents, co-equal with the Father, but distinct, separate and personal (possessing personhood). Nowhere does the NT give us to understand that they are not divine, or are of an inferior nature to the Father. They are always presented as equals--in their nature, in their origin, in their work, in their power, in worship of them.
Always in the NT they are viewed as divine agents, possessing deity within themselves.

And while the NT shows three divine agents, it also shows only one God (Mk 12:29; 1Tim 2:5).
That is the gospel Jesus spells out to Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21); viz., the combined action of the Triune God.

Those who deny the Trinity have to scale down the gospel--and they do.
Those who deny the Trinity deny the majesty of God, for they have him
begetting inferior beings that are not divine,
redeeming by proxy--not involving his person in the redemption by the Son and sanctification of men by the Spirit, paying no personal price, not indwelling men and
thereby they rob him of his glory (Ex 14:14).
They have to make God too small, and they do.
They take out the very heart, core and meaning of Christian faith in God.

 

[Clare73]

Clare73:

Until you can present scripture that says the resurrected body can enter heaven, you are stuck with 1 Corinthians 15:50.

I did, in post #500.

"What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever." (1 Corinthians 15:50 -- New Living Translation)

QUESTION #1 TO CLARE73: Was Jesus a spirit creature or a fleshly creature before he came to earth?

I will watch for your response to my above question.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

The Son of God is divine spirit incarnated (united with human body) on earth.
He died and rose from the dead with a resurrection body and returned to the Father in heaven.

 

[JAL]

The consequence of sin is death to all of us, because we commit sins due to the imperfection we inherited from Adam.

God allows 100 billion innocent descendants of Adam to inherit poison from him? How is that maximum kindness, generosity, and justice? This is precisely the sort of atrocious outcome indicated by my analogy at post 445.

 

[JAL]

Likewise, Adam and Eve passed down their genetic imperfections and sin and death to their offspring--ALL OF US.

Again, it's unkind for God to allow that to happen. Secondly it doesn't make sense to speak of sin or sinful nature being passed from Adam to us. Donald Bloesch admitted that:
(1) A biological/genetic taint would not constitute a sin nature.
(2) Transmission is inexplicable on traditional assumptions (he had no solution).

A sinful nature isn't something that HAPPENS to you because sin can only be defined as something originating in your own free will. Consider for example the carpenter Jesus injuring Himself, going to see a doctor, who tries a new genetically altering surgical procedure. Is Jesus now tainted with sin due to biological imperfection? Doesn't make sense.

My theory of Adam is the ONLY way to explain how his sin tainted us all.

 

[Clare73]

Voluntary entrance into a business agreement, typically in hope of profits. Has nothing to do with involuntary suffering of consequences or condemnation in Adam. False analogy.

Actually, it is your false assertion that it was involuntary that has nothing to do with Jesus' suffering.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

It is Jesus who taught us to pray that the Father's will be done (Mt 6:9-10).

That the burden for which he volunteered (Heb 12:2-3; Jn 4:34, 5:30, 6:38; Mt 26:39, 42)
was so anguishing an angel was sent to strengthen him (Lk 22:40-44)
does not mean it was involuntary.
Rather it is a testimony to his glory in the awful price he volunteered to pay for all those
whom the Father gave him (Jn 6:37, 39, 10:28-29) to protect (save) from his wrath (Ro 5:9).

The whole scenario leading to and resulting from atonement by his Son would not even exist had not
God in his infinite wisdom ordained to receive, through the glory of his Son, the glory DUE to him
(Jn 11:4, 14:13-14, 15:8, 16:14, 17:4-5, 10, 22, 24).

You traffic in blasphemy
(robbing the Son of his glory, which was God's whole purpose in the Son's atonement)
and don't even know it.

See post #510.
.

 

[JAL]

Actually, it is your false assertion that it was involuntary that has nothing to do with Jesus' suffering.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

It is Jesus who taught us to pray that the Father's will be done (Mt 6:9-10).

That the burden for which he volunteered (Heb 12:2-3; Jn 4:34, 5:30, 6:38; Mt 26:39, 42)
was so anguishing an angel was sent to strengthen him (Lk 22:40-44)
does not mean it was involuntary.
Rather it is a testimony to his glory in the awful price he volunteered to pay for all those
whom the Father gave him (Jn 6:37, 39, 10:28-29) to protect (save) from his wrath (Ro 5:9).

The whole scenario leading to and resulting from atonement by his Son would not even exist had not
God in his infinite wisdom ordained that the glory due him would be through the glory of his Son
(Jn 11:4, 14:13-14, 15:8, 16:14, 17:4-5, 10, 22, 24).

You traffic in blasphemy
(robbing the Son of his glory, which was God's whole purpose in the Son's atonement)
and don't even know it.

See post #510.
.

I think you misread me. Jesus suffered voluntarily.

 

[JAL]

See post #510.
.

I already responded to post 510, but I'm beginning to wonder if you are comprehending what I write.

 

[Clare73]

I think you misread me. Jesus suffered voluntarily.

Agreed. . .I misread you.

But your understanding comes up short on application of the analogy, which applies both to voluntary and involuntary payment.

If the Anthropos sons do not want to pay the fine for the code violations occurring at the construction of the old building by their forefathers, but only recently recognized, they get to do so involuntarily, just as those who suffered the destruction of Jerusalem did so involuntarily.

The analogy stands, and justifies, from our own law, the imputation of Adam's debt to Adam's descendants.

 

[Clare73]

I already responded to post 510, but I'm beginning to wonder if you are comprehending what I write.

And from that post this would be why:

"The divinity of Christ is not just a logical construct, it is divine revelation of the Word of God written.
If by "logical construct" you mean it is the necessary conclusion of NT revelation, then I agree.
But it is a poor choice of words, for
it smacks of being an invention of the logic of man
rather than a necessary conclusion of divine revelation."

I am treating what you write as an invention of the logic of man rather than a necessary conclusion of divine revelation, because that's what that terminology indicates to me that it is.

 

[JAL]

And from that post this would be why:

"The divinity of Christ is not just a logical construct, it is divine revelation of the Word of God written.

Irrelevant. (Sigh). For the b-zillionth time, you have no direct access to the Word of God - only to your fallible interpretations of it. As noted earlier, you can only learn Hebrew and Greek from a lexicon created by fallible men. Human logic is ALWAYS involved in exegesis - at minimum it is involved in one's choice of lexicons, and faith in the authors.

Do you have anything more to say than repeating the same tired old arguments already refuted?

 

[JAL]

And that's why we need Direct Revelation (prophetic inspiration) because this alone has the prospect of transcending the fallibility of exegesis.

 

[Clare73]

Irrelevant. (Sigh). For the b-zillionth time, you have no direct access to the Word of God

Don't understand much about the ministry of the Holy Spirit, do you?

- only to your fallible interpretations of it.

Which it then falls upon you to demonstrate from Scripture
how my "interpretations" are contrary to it.

As noted earlier, you can only learn Hebrew and Greek from a lexicon created by fallible men. Human logic is ALWAYS involved in exegesis - at minimum it is involved in one's choice of lexicons, and faith in the authors.

Do you have anything more to say than repeating the same tired old arguments already refuted?

That has the faint smell of a cop out. . .

And yes, there is; i.e., assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

Your understanding comes up short on application of the analogy from Scripture I provided,
which principle therein is embedded in our own law, and
which applies both to voluntary and involuntary payment.

Therefore, it falls upon you to Biblically demonstrate (as in the manner, not necessarily the thoroughness, of Posts #510, 511) how my following Biblical explanation, justifying imputation of Adam's debt, is Biblically refuted, as you assert:

"If the Anthropos sons do not want to pay the fine for the code violations occurring at the construction of the old building by their forefathers, but only recently recognized, they get to do so involuntarily, just as those who suffered the destruction of Jerusalem did so involuntarily."

The Scriptural analogy stands, until you demonstrate otherwise from Scripture, and it does justify, including from our own law, the imputation of Adam's debt to Adam's descendants.

 

[Clare73]

And that's why we need
Direct Revelation (prophetic inspiration) because this
alone has the prospect of transcending the fallibility of exegesis.

"Prospect" is not guaranteed "actuality,"
so what is it that has "the prospect of transcending the" heresy of deception?

You'll know how well that prospect is working for you the first time one of your prophetic inspirations plainly contradicts the clear Word of God written.

Keep in mind that very, very little of the NT Word of God written existed at the time (post #498) the Corinthian church was experiencing the gift of prophecy as its form of instruction, and which Paul instructed them was superior to the gift of tongues.
The Church now has the Word of God written for its complete instruction, beyond which that same Paul instructs us not to go in 1Co 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written."

Any Direct Revelation, not in complete agreement with the Word of God written, is not from God.
At best, it is from one's own imagination,
at worst it is from the one who masquerades as an angel of light.

 

[JAL]

Don't understand much about the ministry of the Holy Spirit, do you?

Um...er...That would be called Direct Revelation. Apparently you don't understand the difference between exegesis (scholarship/human logic) versus the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

"If the Anthropos sons do not want to pay the fine for the code violations occurring at the construction of the old building by their forefathers, but only recently recognized, they get to do so involuntarily, just as those who suffered the destruction of Jerusalem did so involuntarily."

I'm not following your argument here. Bear in mind that we are indeed guilty in Adam. So for example if God says the sins of the parents will fall upon the children, that's actually righteous if the children are already guilty in Adam - they are really paying for their own sin. Meaning God wanted to show the children some undeserved mercy but, since the parents angered Him by their sin, He brought it down upon the children's heads. Nothing wrong with that if they really sinned in Adam.

The question is how do we legitimately construe "sin in Adam"? By representation/imputation? I think not. If a judge awarded you today a death sentence based on imputation/representation, you'd see it as unjust, even if the rep was your own father.

You seem to be trying to handle my objection but I guess I'm just not following why you think you've resolved it. Feel free to clarify.

 

[JAL]

"Prospect" is not guaranteed "actuality,"
so what is it that has "the prospect of transcending the" heresy of deception?

You're asking the wrong question. Prophecy works. If prophetic inspiration is unreliable, your bible is useless (go ahead and throw it away) since it was written by inspiration. The sort of question you should be asking is, "How did the prophets reliably recognize reliable-revelation?"

Again, if you want to read up on Direct Revelation, I'll be happy to supply you some links. Because your silly "objections" are simply betraying your ignorance of the topic.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Also whatever is your defense of imputation/representation, I would also need to know how it bypasses Ezekiel 18 where children are said to pay for their own sins, not those of their forefathers.