Something higher than God wants to save everyone...

[john14_20]

Here’s something to think about: “can a human being relate to that which is not human?”
Yes.Our pet dog can.... It is a lop sided or un-even type of relating of course, but there is still relationship.
So God's position in eternity was improved by a lop sided un-even relating?
But rather, if it is uneven, it is not relating. Only the part that is even is the relating part.
No argument can use in its propositions semantically-reduced terminology. All concepts are only validated by the highest and purest semantic.
You communicate with your dog, you don't relate to him.

I love my dog, and my dog loves me.

There is more than communication here.

 

[Colossians]

John 14_20,


God isn't human?
No. That's why we call him "God".



He became human in the Incarnation, unless you think that Jesus wasn't God.
Yes He did.




Where do the Scriptures tell us that the humanity of Jesus was left behind after He rose?
Did you not read the 2 scriptures I gave you?
What are their implications?
1. What is a "life-giving spirit"? Is a spirit incarnate?
2. When Jesus said "God is a spirit", how much of God did he mean: 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3?
3. When God said "Let us make man", how long had he been not incarnate? (Give me a rough figure: 1,000,000 yrs, 1,000,000,000,000 years etc). In line with this, look up James 1:17: what are the implications?

 

[john14_20]

John 14_20,

Where do the Scriptures tell us that the humanity of Jesus was left behind after He rose?
Did you not read the 2 scriptures I gave you?
What are their implications?
1. What is a "life-giving spirit"? Is a spirit incarnate?
2. When Jesus said "God is a spirit", how much of God did he mean: 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3?
3. When God said "Let us make man", how long had he been not incarnate? (Give me a rough figure: 1,000,000 yrs, 1,000,000,000,000 years etc). In line with this, look up James 1:17: what are the implications?

I read the Scriptures you gave.

They say nothing of Jesus 'disrobing' Himself of His humanity and returning to His original 'spirit' form.

1. Is a spirit incarnate? In the Incarnation, YES

2. When Jesus said God is spirit, He Himself was both God and Man AT THAT TIME. So Jesus saying that God is Spirit does not conflict with God being human - unless Jesus was secretly confessing he wasn't really God.

3. When God made man how long had he been unincarnate? Strange question, and quite moot. The answer is infinite, forever, unanswerable or something like that.

Now, put that together with James 1:17 as you have requested (God does not change) and you are obviously looking for a conclusion that states that God must still be spirit.

But if God was Spirit, and He cannot change, and He is still Spirit, then He never could have become man.

You wanted to know the implication? There it is. The implication is a denial of the Incarnation. I don't think you really want to go there.

Blessings, Pete

 

[Colossians]

John 14_20,

Is a spirit incarnate? In the Incarnation, YES
Ah.. the inclusion trick.
No no: "a spirit hath not flesh and bone". The 2 things are separate and exclusive of the other. That is why they have different names.


When Jesus said God is spirit, He Himself was both God and Man AT THAT TIME. So Jesus saying that God is Spirit does not conflict with God being human - unless Jesus was secretly confessing he wasn't really God.
So could we extend that to the fact that because Jesus was born 2000 years ago, that 1/3 of God was born then too, and that before that only 2/3 of God existed?
But rather, understand that Jesus was speaking in time, and that His statement concering the composition of God, was concerning God in eternity.
Similarly, when Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus in the transfiguration, they appeared in their final state, yet Christ had not come to resurrect them yet.
They did not then go back to the grave, but rather, what the disciples were seeing in time, was their having been resurrected already outside of time.
When you die, you will die the same time as everybody else. For outside of time, everything is at the same 'point'. This is why Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am".



When God made man how long had he been unincarnate? Strange question, and quite moot. The answer is infinite, forever, unanswerable or something like that.
Not as strange as your answer. Until you answer it, you are in default.



Now, put that together with James 1:17 as you have requested (God does not change) and you are obviously looking for a conclusion that states that God must still be spirit.
Well if that verse leads you to think that this might be the conclusion, then what does that tell you about your theology?
Here's another for you: when Christ appeared physically to Abraham before Sodom, was he incarnate?



But if God was Spirit, and He cannot change, and He is still Spirit, then He never could have become man.
He can become man in the time realm. And He created time inside of Himself.

 

[john14_20]

John 14_20,

So could we extend that to the fact that because Jesus was born 2000 years ago, that 1/3 of God was born then too, and that before that only 2/3 of God existed?

No, all of God was born then, as Jesus is God. Totally, completely, fully.

Yet somehow none of God was born then for the Father was in Heaven.

The Trinity is a mystery.

God was not 2/3 of Himself before the Incarnation.

The One who always was became incarnate.

John 14_20,


When God made man how long had he been unincarnate? Strange question, and quite moot. The answer is infinite, forever, unanswerable or something like that.
Not as strange as your answer. Until you answer it, you are in default.

You are the only one in default.

And you are in default because you accuse me of not answering your question.

You see where you quoted me as saying "The answer is....."?

That would be my answer!

Blessings to you Colossians, Pete

 

[Colossians]

Johh 14_20,

Your post is inappropriate from several aspects. But you have taught me one thing: how much you wish to learn; and I shall qualify any future posts to you accordingly.

 

[john14_20]

And He created time inside of Himself.

Now this, I like!

 

[john14_20]

Johh 14_20,

Your post is inappropriate from several aspects. But you have taught me one thing: how much you wish to learn; and I shall qualify any future posts to you accordingly.

Whatever do you mean, Colossians?

 

[msortwell]

Yes I noticed that one , and if anyone doesn't agree with him , he says they arn't a Calvinist and then declares Romans 9 is a sword to hit you with ...

Like if you don't agree with me then YOU must be the person Paul was talking about in Romans 9

I went to the link that you provided but I could not, from that article, liken the theology described there to some of the positions offered by Coloss.

Is there a seminary, church, or cult currently operating that teaches a doctrine largely consistent with the positions forwarded by Coloss?

msortwell

 

[john14_20]

I went to the link that you provided but I could not, from that article, liken the theology described there to some of the positions offered by Coloss.

Is there a seminary, church, or cult currently operating that teaches a doctrine largely consistent with the positions forwarded by Coloss?

msortwell

Coloss's refusal to answer the question does make one curious as to why.

Perhaps it is as simple as he doesn't like to be labelled as a 'whatever'.

We humans love putting people in boxes.

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[cygnusx1]

I went to the link that you provided but I could not, from that article, liken the theology described there to some of the positions offered by Coloss.

Is there a seminary, church, or cult currently operating that teaches a doctrine largely consistent with the positions forwarded by Coloss?

msortwell

I don't think the article is covering all the points , but sufficient to show that there have been people (very rarely) who believe God Himself is responsible for sin, and instead of permitting it and overuling it for good He is said to just will it!




"Gomarus, himself a strong supralapsarian, did join the committee in warning Maccovius against using unbiblical methods and making rash statements. These same rash statements are condemned in the Canons themselves, which tell us in no uncertain terms that we may not make God the author of sin."

http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/macco.htm



But you are right no Calvinistic creed or author that I ever read denies secondary causes , and declares God "the sinner" ..... mind you , there is always the possibility one exists.
It's just very sad that Calvinists will be tarred with this brush , if others think it is Calvinist.

Also it's impossible to debate with someone who thinks so highly of his opinion that all other quotes are redundant. That should tell you something ...

 

[Philip dT]

Here’s something to think about: “can a human being relate to that which is not human?”

Faulty analogy. Man hasn't / couldn't make anything in his own image.

 

[Colossians]

It is no analogy, so you are off track from the start.

It is a parallel. And it stands by principle: like relates to like. That is why we have terms like "fellowship", in which 'fellows' (eg University Alumni) relate.
To relate is to experience like things in like manner. To relate therefore requires reciprocity. Man cannot relate to God, therefore it cannot be said that God can relate to man.
So then, God became man, for God Himself dwells in "unapproachable light".

Your point that God can relate to man because God can relate to that which is in his image, is not well thought-through:
Being in God's image is not enough, for that is merely quantitative (excludes righteousness, holiness etc). One must actually be God's actual image, which is qualitative, in order to relate (reciprocate righteousness, holiness etc) to God.
God's actual image is Christ (Col 1:15), and Christ is God.

God can only relate to God.

 

[Philip dT]

God can only relate to God.

Do you mean by this that God transform man into (a) God in order to have a relationship with him?

 

[john14_20]

So what's your point Col

God does not have a relationship with us?

 

[cygnusx1]

So what's your point Col

God does not have a relationship with us?

that is precisely his point ........... guaranteed to leave us K .O .

well ... I suppose I could become a Buddist

 

[Colossians]

So what's your point Col
God does not have a relationship with us?
He has it with Christ in us. That is why it was necessary for Christ to dwell in us.

 

[Philip dT]

He has it with Christ in us. That is why it was necessary for Christ to dwell in us.

But doesn't He have a relationship with Christ without us? Why are humans necessary in the equation?

 

[Colossians]

Do you mean by this that God transform man into (a) God in order to have a relationship with him?
No. He crucified man knowing He could not have a relationship with Him, and replaced Him with Christ by putting him inside Christ, so that only Christ is seen by the Father, and the elect would then declare: "it is no longer I that live, but Christ".
God has a relationship with Christ on our behalf. We are the bride who are "one spirit with Him".

What you must understand is that the body of Christ has a recursive structure:
The Head is Jesus Christ in full.
The Body is all the believers.
The Head + Body is, once again, Jesus Christ in full.
(If you draw this on paper, you will be presented with a brand new paradigm.)

 

[moonbeam]

I don't think the article is covering all the points , but sufficient to show that there have been people (very rarely) who believe God Himself is responsible for sin, and instead of permitting it and overuling it for good He is said to just will it!

Evil .......corruption......can only exist because God willed it to exist.......that we may be exercised in it and He glorified through it
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope Rom8:20