because I nor anyone else needs to know the end of the matter for certain to attain eternal life
---Pharisee on 2/17/17
I would guess that 95% of the subjects discussed in these blogs do not impact our having eternal life or not.
But, as I have reminded others in these blogs, to know the Father (and Jesus) is eternal life (John 17:3).
My passion is to introduce people to the real and true Heavenly Father, not the distant, angry, Omni-being, we have been told about in many churches.
If to know our Father in heaven is eternal life, what else could be more important?
---Mark_Eaton on 2/19/17|
Well I recently decided not to make a determination on this issue, because I nor anyone else needs to know the end of the matter for certain to attain eternal life.
If people choose to believe in a spirit union pre-cross I like to simply provide a challenge to whatever they present so that they think it through. If you'd of come in favor of the other opinion I'd of done my best to do the same.
In either case the true challenge to both sides is to better know the life of Jesus and that's never a bad thing.
---Pharisee on 2/17/17|
Why is it a stretch to think that...Jesus...was in essence possessed?
---Pharisee on 2/16/17
I see no evidence for Jesus being possessed or controlled.
Rather, I see evidence for inhabitation without control, as in being baptized/sealed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the Anointed One, meaning anointed in the Spirit. We rarely discuss this. I also see this as a permanent anointing.
We are cautioned by Scripture against being drunk. I believe this is because we are controlled by the drink when we are drunk.
God does not want us to be controlled. God wants us to freely choose God's ways over our ways.
With this in mind, I do not think Jesus was controlled by anything else.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/17/17|
For the sake of argument Mark, I could be possessed by the devil himself and the devil while yet inside me speaking through my vocal chords could rightly say he was the devil and be stating fact when in fact I myself (at least when I last checked) was not Satan.
Why is it a stretch to think that perhaps the man Jesus, the lamb of God, who also being the son of God having no earthly Father was in essence possessed (albeit by agreement) by the second person of the trinity???
After all how does God become "sin for us" (2Cor 5:21) or become a man (John 1:14) when he states plainly in Malachi 3:6 that he doesn't change?
---Pharisee on 2/16/17|
Do you mean humanly pre-existent?
---Pharisee on 2/15/17
My belief (according to John 1) is that Jesus pre-existed as the Word and that Jesus continues to exist as the Word, even though He became a fully human being.
If we apply Nestorian theology and separate the Word from Jesus in the Incarnation, it seemingly makes the "I AM" statements made by Jesus in John to be false. How could Jesus make these statements when He originated at birth?
Jesus plainly tells us that He came to this world from the Father, and will leave this world to return to the Father (John 16:28).
No person who is only human could do that.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/16/17|
"causes Jesus to not continue to be pre-existent"
Do you mean humanly pre-existent? I had never considered that he was, and if this is what you believe I'd love to see you build a case for it.
---Pharisee on 2/15/17|
who tout the hypostatic union as fact and the alacrity in which they dispensed judgement on anything else
---Pharisee on 2/14/17
Funny, I have been accused of doing the same thing with the doctrine of the Trinity.
If I understand the Nestorian teachings, the main reason for this teaching is the conflict with one member of divinity dying. And as Cluny inferred, Nestorius had trouble seeing Mary as the mother of the second person in the Trinity.
It seems to me, to separate the humanity of Jesus from His deity, causes Jesus to not continue to be pre-existent, to be split, to be incomplete. Jesus is pre-existent from John 1, and if Jesus is God, He must be complete, lacking nothing.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/15/17|
That's an amazing concept Mark, (that Jesus could sort of switch off his diety for his humanity) it certainly lends explaination to a lot of his sayings that were uniquely human. ("never the less not my will but thine," and "my God why have you forsaken me?" Or, "no man knows the day and the hour")
I've always been disturbed by the lack (as I see it) of plausible explanation given by those who tout the hypostatic union as fact and the alacrity in which they dispensed judgement on anything else. In part because I saw this as a debatable matter, one in which neither side could prove it's case beyond a doubt. For I had throught the matter through long before learning there was a doctrine for it.
---Pharisee on 2/14/17|
My personal belief is in Hypostatic union, as I am a firm believer in the understanding of Athansius.
Jesus as I accept, was fully man and fully God, but the question is, was this true at the same time?
I choose to see Jesus having one mind but choosing to not use His deity except when told by the Father to do so. He is fully human by choice and fully God by pre-existence.
Our Watch Tower friends use Nestorian teaching against us Trinitarians by asking "how can God, the Son, die on the cross"?
To that we say, if Jesus is not fully God, how could he live a sinless life?
---Mark_Eaton on 2/14/17|
Actually, NOBODY, except for a few Protestants are classical Nestorians as defined and condemned by Ephesus.
Some years ago, Pope John Paul II and the Nestorian patriarch signed a document of common Christology, where they agreed that "Theotokos" and "Mother of Christ our God" ssaid the same things.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/14/17|