Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intended Catholic Dictatorship
Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 15,651-15,70015,701-15,75015,751-15,80015,801-15,828 last
To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
It said that the Vatican has 6 million signatures asking the Pope to infallibly declare: "That the Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus and co-operates fully with her son in the redemption of humanity.

Latins have four Marian dogmas. Two are ancient dogmas of her being the Theotokos and Ever-Vrigin, pronounced by the undivided Church in the 4th century in response to Chrisotlogical heresies, and therefore not about her. Then, somewhere in the middle of the 19th century the Pope, all on his own, declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In 1950, again, the Pope makes another "ex cathedra" dogma about her bodily assumption into heaven.

Both of these "ex cathdera" dogmas were made without any heresy to defend, and are therefore about Mary. Dogmatic teaching about human beings is a heresy in itself. As Kolo aptly observed, all Orthodox dogmas are about God—for God and because of God, never about man.

Nothing Marian, other than that she is the God-Bearer and that she is Ever-Virgin (as mentioned in the Nicene Creed) is required to be baptized Orthodox. But in order to be baptized Latin you must believe that she was conceived immaculately and that she raised into heaven body and soul. In other words one cannot be a Catholic unless he believes these things about Mary.

To me that is as idolatrous as it gets. I can understand it as a de fide tradition, but not as dogma involving a human being.

15,801 posted on 11/16/2010 9:26:00 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15797 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
Yes, in the sense that we are born dead in our sins and then later are given life by Christ.

But Paul doesn't say that Christ is the life-giving spirit, but that he came into existence (became) a life-giving spirit the way Adam became (came into existence) as a living soul (psyche). He is talking about their coming into existence.

No, and Paul knew that. Here Paul was looking at Christ's actions, not His existence

The Bible does not support your view.

1 Corinthians 15:45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.

It's not about Christ' actions, as you claim, but how he came to be—at least in Greek. What they do with it in English may be a whole different story. No wonder we don't see the same thing in the same verses.

15,802 posted on 11/16/2010 11:37:57 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15799 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
Yes, and we must be careful not to misinterpret Paul as suggesting that Christ is created. Christ is described as "first-born"

Well, likewise. :)

He is both a creator and a creature, which is impossible

Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism.

There is a fuller explanation in God Questions?

Well, more doesn't necessarily imply quality, FK. For example, the author argues "Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity."

That argument is wholly naive. Man was created in God's image and likeness and was not divine.

He then continues by saying "The 'Word' of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction."

Why is he using John (who wrote at the end of the century) to corroborate Paul (who wrote in the middle of it)? John's purpose and agenda was completely different, as was the situation with Christianity vs. Judaism, and Christianity vs. Hellenism.

Then the author uses Hebrews 1:3, saying "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."

Well, radiance is not the same as the Sun, and being the exact "representation" of something is not the same as the thing itself. he is also saying that it was the Son who was sustaining all things with his powerful word rather than being the Word himself.

Then he quotes John 1:10 to show that Christ pre-existed the world.Ppre-existing the world doesn't preclude him form being creatured. Angels pre-existed the world and they are created. Creation did not only unlocked the material world. But calling something the first born of all creatures can only mean one thing: the first creature.

I realize that Christians will never admit to that, even if in the back of their minds they understand that this is precisely what Paul is saying, because it would be a devastating admission. 

Then the author states a classical heresy: "In the incarnation, the invisible God became visible in Christ; deity was clothed. with humanity." Good to see that ancient Christological heresies submit alive and well in triniatrian Protestant communities. :)

15,803 posted on 11/16/2010 11:47:44 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15799 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
He insists that "The description 'first-born of all creation' speaks of Christ’s preexistence."

No doubt, but if Christ is God then he is not only pre-existing creation but rather exists eternally, without regard to time of the Mormon of creation.

He continues "Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word 'first-born' (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority."

Really? here is a definition form a Biblical Greek lexicon (my emphasis): 

Prototokos: the firstborn

  1. of man or beast
  2. of Christ, the first born of all creation 

Beasts too...

Then he says "Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: 'I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth' (Psalm 89:27)."

Needless to say Psalm 89 is not at all about Christ. But more importantly, your apologists is either misquoting Psalm 29 or his version of the Bible is. You see the Bible doesn't says "higher than the kings on the earth" but "the highest of the kings on earth." (in other words one of the earthly kings).

I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.

Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he? It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free. Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in ahmrony with God's will.

He knew the story and it's a very long stretch, imo, to say he ever wrote anything contradicting the idea.

He did, he called Mary "a woman" when her virginity is of such central importance to overlook or ignore, or disregard. 

Even if we translate it "born of a woman" it is very conspicuous that Paul would not mention the (human) father at all.

I don't think so, FK. First, he wasn't making a genealogy, and second the two genealogies we do have identify +Jospeh as the father. Either way, the Chirtsians will find a way out by rationalizing that if a father is mentioned he is only a "legal guardian" and if not that much better... :) The matter was about him coming into this world, and Paul said he came into existence by a woman under the law. That sounds pretty ordinary to me.

15,804 posted on 11/16/2010 11:48:56 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15799 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

submit = subsist


15,805 posted on 11/17/2010 4:27:53 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15803 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50
"1 Corinthians 15:45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.

It's not about Christ' actions, as you claim, but how he came to be—at least in Greek. What they do with it in English may be a whole different story. No wonder we don't see the same thing in the same verses."

Kosta is correct. This is an important, indeed fundamental point of Christian theology. The Creed demonstrates this when speaking about Christ. We proclaim Christ:

"καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ, and

γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·

Words like Μονογενῆ, and γεννηθέντα "only begotten and "begotten" are contrasted with ποιηθέντα, "made" or ἐγένετο, "came into being". Add to these such words as "σαρκωθέντα ","enfleshed" and "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα", "became man" and remember that Christ is called "Ο ΩΝ", basically "the Being Who Creates Existence", and you can see who either +Paul got it very, very wrong, or Protestantism, especially using bad English translations, has distorted what in fact was being taught by +Paul. , τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,

15,806 posted on 11/17/2010 4:31:56 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15802 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
errata...

Mormon of creation = Mormon of creation
Psalm 29 = Psalm 89
Chirtsians = Christians

sorry

15,807 posted on 11/17/2010 4:34:14 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15804 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50
Sorry!

"1 Corinthians 15:45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.

It's not about Christ' actions, as you claim, but how he came to be—at least in Greek. What they do with it in English may be a whole different story. No wonder we don't see the same thing in the same verses."

Kosta is correct. This is an important, indeed fundamental point of Christian theology. The Creed demonstrates this when speaking about Christ. We proclaim Christ:

"καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,

and

τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων

γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·

Words like Μονογενῆ, and γεννηθέντα "only begotten and "begotten" are contrasted with ποιηθέντα, "made" or ἐγένετο, "came into being". Add to these such words as "σαρκωθέντα ","enfleshed" and "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα", "became man" and remember that Christ is called "Ο ΩΝ", basically "the Being Who Creates Existence", and you can see who either +Paul got it very, very wrong, or Protestantism, especially using bad English translations, has distorted what in fact was being taught by +Paul. ,

15,808 posted on 11/17/2010 4:34:47 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15802 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Its all about Christ, FK, every bit of it, because without the Incarnation, the “enfleshment” of God the Word, nothing, no theology or praxis or ecclesiology, at all, makes any difference. We may agree far more than you think, my brother!

AMEN, brother! It IS all about Christ. Without sharing Him as the absolute center friendly debate among Christians becomes witnessing.

15,809 posted on 11/17/2010 9:57:32 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15796 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
FK: ... He is both a creator and a creature, which is impossible

Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism.

True, but of course I meant in Christianity (or in the broader sense Monotheism).

Well, more doesn't necessarily imply quality, FK. For example, the author argues "Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity." ---- That argument is wholly naive. Man was created in God's image and likeness and was not divine.

But naturally, different words are used for "image". In Col. 1:15 it is NT:1504 eikon (i-kone'); from NT:1503; a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: KJV - image.

In Gen. 1:26, "image"is - OT:6754 (tseh'-lem); from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol: KJV - image, vain shew. ------ And "Likeness" is - OT:1821 (dem-ooth'); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

The author's statement is therefore perfectly permissible.

He then continues by saying "The 'Word' of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction." ---- Why is he using John (who wrote at the end of the century) to corroborate Paul (who wrote in the middle of it)?

Because he/she sees the Bible as I do, as coming from a single source not affected by time. Therefore, nothing in the Bible is ineligible to be used as corroboration of anything else scriptural due to author or time written.

Well, radiance is not the same as the Sun, and being the exact "representation" of something is not the same as the thing itself.

I don't see anything unreasonable in taking the phrase "exact representation" to mean having the same nature. The author actually notes that it is "more than a representation".

15,810 posted on 11/17/2010 7:37:10 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15803 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
Then he says "Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: 'I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth' (Psalm 89:27)." -----Needless to say Psalm 89 is not at all about Christ. But more importantly, your apologists is either misquoting Psalm 89 or his version of the Bible is. You see the Bible doesn't says "higher than the kings on the earth" but "the highest of the kings on earth." (in other words one of the earthly kings).

You raise a perfectly good point. Interestingly, the NIV translates it the same as you, and the context is clear in any event. The "him" in that passage is David. So, if the author was making a new point for his "finally" then I agree with you that he/she is wrong. However, if he/she was following up from two paragraphs earlier in describing the inheritance and authority aspect of "firstborn", i.e. "The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership." then he/she might deserve a pass because the example was of "firstborn" generally, not of Christ specifically. It wasn't written well in either case.

FK: I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.

Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he?

It depends on how we define "human". I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.

It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free.

Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will). That plays out clearly when He asks to have the cup taken away. So really the concept of a completely unencumbered free will is not present in Christ on earth.

Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in harmony with God's will.

Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)

15,811 posted on 11/17/2010 8:05:58 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15804 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
[Kosta: Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism]

[FK: True, but of course I meant in Christianity (or in the broader sense Monotheism]

But Paul was preaching to pagan Greeks. There is a lot of similarity between Paul's idea of the "firstborn of all creatures" and the Platonic demiurge the Greeks could relate to. It is no coincidence that Gnostics found Paul's gospel dear and near to their own (Maricon, Valentius, etc.)

The demiurgic theology of Paul seems evident all over his Epistles, but nothing as clearly stated as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (see also Hebrews 1:2).

different words are used for "image". In Col. 1:15 it is NT:1504 eikon (i-kone'); from NT:1503; a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: KJV - image. In Gen. 1:26,

An icon is not considered the thing itself, FK. The Orthodox do not worship the 'picture' of Christ but the Christ which the pictures represents. If Paul says that Christ is only an icon of God then Christ (icon, a graven image) is not to be worshiped.

"image"is - OT:6754 (tseh'-lem); from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol: KJV - image, vain shew. 

Tselem is used in Genesis 1:26, for example and it is defined as (a) images (of tumors, mice, heathen gods), (b) image, likeness, (of resemblance), (c) mere, empty, image, semblance (figuratively). The word tselem is translated in the Septuagint as eikon, a physical image.

And "Likeness" is - OT:1821 (dem-ooth'); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Demooth is also used in Genesis 1:26 and corresponds to the Greek homoiosis which is to say similitude, likeness. This is a qualitative term, not a physical image or representation. It is the quality man lost in the Fall, and it is the quality man must regain in order to be saved, i.e. become Christ-like or God-like.

In the West, especially in the English-speaking West, the two terms are synonymous;  for example Dictionary.com defines image (eikon) as physical likeness (homoiosis). Thus, in English being made in "the image and likeness of God" is understood as distinction without a (real) difference. In the East, however, the theological and soteriological implication of the difference cannot be overemphasized.

15,812 posted on 11/17/2010 10:23:59 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15810 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
Because he/she sees the Bible as I do, as coming from a single source not affected by time. Therefore, nothing in the Bible is ineligible to be used as corroboration of anything else scriptural due to author or time written.

Okay, but that is not based on evidence. Evidence suggests otherwise.

I don't see anything unreasonable in taking the phrase "exact representation" to mean having the same nature. The author actually notes that it is "more than a representation".

My point is that radiance is not the object that radiates, nor does it have the  same nature or essence as the object that radiates. For example, our bodies radiate heat. That heat is not "human." It is heat that radiates from human beings, but that doesn't make the heat human by nature. 

It depends on how we define "human".

That sounds positively Clintonian. :)

I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.

FK, first human nature is created. Not even God can change that. Second, the nature of all living things, not only human, is that they die. No exceptions. Whether you believe you are "saved" or not is irrelevant. Even the "saved" must die. What happens after that is speculation.

Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will).

And therefore he is not like Adam.

Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)

No, it seems rather certain. God's will is not what we do when we sin (by definition). If we know what constitutes sin (as everyone claims they do), then we also know that God's will is just the opposite of it! :)

15,813 posted on 11/17/2010 10:55:55 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15811 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50
[Re: 1 Corinthians 15:45] Kosta: The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.

Kolo: Kosta is correct. This is an important, indeed fundamental point of Christian theology. The Creed demonstrates this when speaking about Christ.

Kolo: ... Add to these such words as "σαρκωθέντα ","enfleshed" and "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα", "became man" and remember that Christ is called "Ο ΩΝ", basically "the Being Who Creates Existence", and you can see who either +Paul got it very, very wrong, or Protestantism, especially using bad English translations, has distorted what in fact was being taught by +Paul. , τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,

This is what Strong's says: NT:1096 ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee); a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"- erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.): KJV - arise, be assembled, be (-come, -fall, -haveself), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought. (emphasis added)

The Protestant view of Paul is easily within these parameters since it is by no means required that ginomai can ONLY mean "come into existence". So, as is always the case, Bible-believing Protestantism AND Paul are both right and in agreement. :)

15,814 posted on 11/17/2010 11:11:14 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15806 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
The Protestant view of Paul is easily within these parameters since it is by no means required that ginomai can ONLY mean "come into existence".

So, what does in the "Protestant view" ginomai mean in 1 Cor 15:45?

If I remember correctly, you said it meant Christ's mission or work. Your own definition doesn't support that, FK. Especially since Paul uses it only once for both Adam and Christ.

15,815 posted on 11/17/2010 11:34:05 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15814 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50

I’m not surprised that Strong translates the way he does, consistent with the Methodist theology he embraced. But here, Strong is wrong.

FK, I am curious. Why would anyone think a 19th century Protestant from NJ who likely never went to Greece, maybe even never knew a Greek, let alone a Greek Orthodox theologian, would be an authority on koine or Byzantine Greek?


15,816 posted on 11/18/2010 3:37:43 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15814 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
As in other alleged contras, there is none, and Paul is certainly not speaking of Jesus coming into existence after Adam, which constrained heretical view is contrary to what the Bible teaches, rather the context is unmistakably that of resurrection, and what Jesus then became.

First, it is interesting to see that Jesus "was made" (which term is not in the Greek in 1Cor. 15:45b, but is rightly supplied, and is often translated "become/became") a lot of things.

Jesus preexisted with the Father, (Mic. 5:2; Ps. 90:2) through whom He made the worlds, Heb. 1:2) and all things, (Col. 1:16) who prepared for Him a body, for "when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me," (Hebrews 10:5) and thus "the Word was made flesh," (Jn. 1:14) In John, Jesus inference of an ontological oneness with the Father is protested by the Jews. (Jn. 5:18; 19:7)

Paul, who "was made a minister," (Eph. 3:7) states that in His incarnation, Jesus positionally "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2:7); as He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," Rm. 1:3) and Hebrews likewise states that Jesus "was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death," (Heb. 2:9) resulting in men having "crucified the Lord of glory." (1Cor. 2:8)

And having died and rose, Jesus was functionally made "both Lord and Christ," (Acts 2:36) and thus "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," (1Cor. 1:30) and was also "made a surety of a better testament." (Heb. 7:22)

As a result of His death and resurrection, and with the latter being the context here, Jesus functionally became a life-giving spirit, as by faith in Him believers have life, not only eternal life but regeneration of the Spirit, (Eph. 2:1,5) who was not poured out upon all believers (Acts 2:17,18) until Jesus resurrection, (Jn. 7:39; 14:26) for "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (1Jn. 4:9)

As far as being is concerned, as Jesus had to take on flesh, He essentially was/is spirit, as God the Father is, (Jn. 4:24) and after His resurrection appeared in a glorified, incorruptible physical body, not simply as a spirit, which could materialize at will yet eat food (Lk. 24:36-43) and which type of body believers will have, (1Cor. 15:49; 1Jn. 3:2) as "in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Cor. 15:22; and which is termed a spiritual body. (1Cor. 15:44,46)

To God be the glory, and "as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," (1Cor. 2:9) even the “spirits of just men made perfect.” (Heb. 12:13) And less than Jacob, “I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which” He hast shewed unto me

15,817 posted on 11/19/2010 6:25:37 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15799 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper


G1096 γίνομαι ginomai As used in KJV. Total KJV Occurrences: 456

came, 88

Mat. 7:28, Mat. 9:10, Mat. 11:1, Mat. 13:53, Mat. 26:1 (2), Mk. 1:9, Mk. 1:11, Mk. 2:15, Mk. 2:23, Mk. 4:4, Mk. 9:21, Luk. 1:8, Luk. 1:23, Luk. 1:41, Luk. 1:59, Luk. 1:65, Luk. 2:1, Luk. 2:15, Luk. 2:46, Luk. 3:2, Luk. 3:21-22 (2), Luk. 5:1, Luk. 5:12, Luk. 5:17, Luk. 6:1, Luk. 6:6, Luk. 6:12, Luk. 7:11, Luk. 8:1, Luk. 8:22, Luk. 8:40, Luk. 9:18, Luk. 9:28, Luk. 9:33-35 (3), Luk. 9:37, Luk. 9:51, Luk. 9:57, Luk. 10:38, Luk. 11:1, Luk. 11:14, Luk. 11:27, Luk. 14:1, Luk. 16:22, Luk. 17:11, Luk. 17:14, Luk. 18:35, Luk. 19:15, Luk. 19:29, Luk. 20:1, Luk. 24:4, Luk. 24:15, Luk. 24:30, Luk. 24:51, Jn. 1:17, Jn. 10:35, Jn. 12:30, Acts 2:2, Acts 2:43, Acts 5:5 (2), Acts 5:11, Acts 7:31, Acts 9:3, Acts 9:32, Acts 9:37, Acts 9:43, Acts 10:13, Acts 11:26, Acts 11:28, Acts 14:1, Acts 16:16, Acts 16:29, Acts 21:1 (2), Acts 21:35, Acts 22:6, Acts 22:17, Acts 27:44, Acts 28:8, Acts 28:17, 2Co. 1:8, 1Th. 1:5, 1Th. 3:4, 2Ti. 3:11

made, 73

Mat. 4:3, Mat. 9:16, Mat. 23:15, Mat. 25:6, Mat. 27:24, Mk. 2:21, Mk. 2:27, Mk. 14:4, Luk. 4:2-3 (2), Luk. 8:17, Luk. 23:12 (2), Luk. 23:19, Jn. 1:3 (3), Jn. 1:10, Jn. 1:14, Jn. 2:9, Jn. 5:4, Jn. 5:6, Jn. 5:9, Jn. 5:14, Jn. 8:33, Jn. 9:39, Acts 7:13, Acts 12:5, Acts 13:32, Acts 14:5, Acts 19:26, Acts 21:40, Acts 26:6, Rom. 1:3, Rom. 2:25, Rom. 7:13, Rom. 10:20, Rom. 11:9, 1Co. 1:30, 1Co. 3:13, 1Co. 4:9, 1Co. 4:13, 1Co. 9:21-22 (2), 1Co. 11:19, 1Co. 14:25, 1Co. 15:45 (2), 2Co. 5:21, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:4 (2), Eph. 2:13, Phil 2:7 (3), Col. 1:23, Col. 1:25, Col. 2:11, Tit. 3:7, Heb. 1:4, Heb. 3:14, Heb. 5:5, Heb. 6:4, Heb. 6:20, Heb. 7:12, Heb. 7:16, Heb. 7:21-22 (2), Heb. 7:26, Heb. 11:3, James 3:9, 1Pe. 2:7

done, 63

Mat. 1:22, Mat. 6:10, Mat. 8:13, Mat. 11:20-21 (3), Mat. 11:23 (2), Mat. 18:19, Mat. 18:31 (2), Mat. 21:4, Mat. 21:21, Mat. 26:42, Mat. 26:56, Mat. 27:54, Mk. 4:11 (2), Mk. 5:14, Mk. 5:33, Mk. 13:30, Luk. 4:23, Luk. 8:34-35 (2), Luk. 8:56, Luk. 9:7, Luk. 10:13 (2), Luk. 11:2, Luk. 13:17, Luk. 14:22, Luk. 22:42, Luk. 23:8, Luk. 23:31, Luk. 23:47-48 (2), Luk. 24:21, Jn. 1:28, Jn. 15:7, Jn. 19:36, Acts 2:43, Acts 4:16, Acts 4:21, Acts 4:28, Acts 4:30, Acts 5:7, Acts 8:13, Acts 10:16, Acts 11:10, Acts 12:9, Acts 13:12, Acts 14:3, Acts 21:14, Acts 24:2, Acts 28:9, 1Co. 9:15, 1Co. 14:26, 1Co. 14:40, 1Co. 16:14, Eph. 5:12, Rev. 16:17, Rev. 22:6 (2)

come, 44

Mat. 8:16, Mat. 14:23, Mat. 20:8, Mat. 24:6, Mat. 26:20, Mat. 27:1, Mat. 27:57, Mk. 4:35, Mk. 6:2, Mk. 6:21, Mk. 6:47, Mk. 11:19, Mk. 11:23, Mk. 13:29, Mk. 15:33, Mk. 15:42, Luk. 2:15, Luk. 19:9, Luk. 21:7, Luk. 21:9, Luk. 21:28, Luk. 21:31, Luk. 21:36, Luk. 22:14, Luk. 24:12, Luk. 24:18, Jn. 5:14, Jn. 6:16, Jn. 13:19 (2), Jn. 14:29 (2), Jn. 21:4, Acts 12:11, Acts 21:17, Acts 26:22, Acts 27:7, Acts 27:16, Acts 27:27, Acts 28:6, Gal. 3:14, Heb. 11:24, Rev. 1:1, Rev. 12:10

become, 25

Mat. 18:3, Mat. 21:42, Mk. 1:17, Mk. 12:10, Luk. 20:17, Jn. 1:12, Acts 4:11, Acts 7:40, Rom. 3:18-19 (2), Rom. 4:18, Rom. 7:13, 1Co. 3:18, 1Co. 8:9, 1Co. 13:1, 1Co. 15:20, 2Co. 5:17, 2Co. 12:11, Gal. 4:16, Phm. 1:6, Heb. 5:12, James 2:4, James 2:11, Rev. 11:15, Rev. 18:2

became, 18

Mat. 28:4, Mk. 9:3, Acts 10:10, 1Co. 9:20, 1Co. 9:22, 1Co. 13:11, Phil 2:8, 1Th. 1:6, 1Th. 2:14, Heb. 5:9, Heb. 10:33, Heb. 11:7, Rev. 6:12 (2), Rev. 8:8, Rev. 8:11, Rev. 16:3-4 (2)

forbid, 15

Luk. 20:16, Rom. 3:4, Rom. 3:6, Rom. 3:31, Rom. 6:2, Rom. 6:15, Rom. 7:7, Rom. 9:13-14 (2), Rom. 11:1, Rom. 11:11, 1Co. 6:15, Gal. 2:17, Gal. 3:21, Gal. 6:14

god, 15

Luk. 20:16, Rom. 3:4, Rom. 3:6, Rom. 3:31, Rom. 6:2, Rom. 6:15, Rom. 7:7, Rom. 9:13-14 (2), Rom. 11:1, Rom. 11:11, 1Co. 6:15, Gal. 2:17, Gal. 3:21, Gal. 6:14

been, 14

Luk. 16:10-12 (3), Luk. 19:17, Acts 7:52, Acts 15:7, Acts 19:21, Acts 20:18, Acts 26:32, Rom. 9:29, Rom. 11:34, Rom. 16:2, Col. 4:11, 1Ti. 5:9

arose, 11

Mat. 8:24, Mk. 4:37, Luk. 6:48, Luk. 15:14, Jn. 3:25, Acts 6:1, Acts 11:19, Acts 19:23, Acts 23:7, Acts 23:9-10 (2)

being, 5

Mk. 9:33, Luk. 22:44, James 1:25 1Pe. 1:7, 1Pe. 5:3

becometh, 4

Mat. 13:22, Mat. 13:32, Mk. 4:19, Mk. 4:32

fulfilled, 3

Mat. 5:18, Mat. 24:34, Luk. 21:32

cometh, 2

Luk. 12:54-55 (2), 1Ti. 6:4

doing, 2

Mat. 21:42, Mk. 12:11

grow, 2

Mat. 21:19, Acts 5:24

had, 2

Acts 15:2, Acts 25:26

have, 2

Mat. 18:12, 1Co. 4:5

past, 2

Luk. 9:36, 2Ti. 2:18

preferred, 2

Jn. 1:27, Jn. 1:30

seemed, 2

Mat. 11:26, Luk. 10:21

showed, 2

Acts 4:21-22 (2), Acts 10:40

trembled, 2

Acts 7:32, Acts 24:25


waxed, 2

Luk. 13:19, Heb. 11:34

wrought, 2

Mk. 6:2, Acts 5:12

altered, 1

Luk. 9:29

married, 3

Rom. 7:3-4 (3)

abroad, 2

Mk. 6:14, Acts 2:6

ariseth, 2

Mat. 13:21, Mk. 4:17

brought, 2

Acts 5:36, 1Co. 15:54

amazed, 1

Luk. 4:36

assembled, 1

Acts 15:25

awaking, 1

Acts 16:27

befell, 1

Mk. 5:16

behaved, 1

1Th. 2:10

camest, 1

Jn. 6:25

coming, 1

Acts 27:33

continued, 1

Acts 19:10

divided, 1

Rev. 16:19

drawing, 1

Jn. 6:19 (2)

ended, 1

Jn. 13:2

even, 1

Mk. 1:32

falling, 1

Acts 1:18

fell, 1

Rev. 16:2

finished, 1

Heb. 4:2-3 (2)

followed, 1

Rev. 8:7

found, 1

2Co. 7:14

give, 1

1Co. 10:32

happened, 1

Rom. 11:25

kept, 1

Mk. 4:22

laid, 1

Acts 20:3

lost, 1

Mk. 9:50

means, 1

Heb. 9:15

noised, 1

Acts 2:6

ordained, 1

Acts 1:22

partakest, 1

Rom. 11:17

performed, 1

Luk. 1:20

published, 1

Acts 10:37

purposed, 1

Acts 20:3

put, 1

Jn. 12:42

require, 1

1Co. 7:36

saltness, 1

Mk. 9:50

soon, 1

Acts 12:18

sounded, 1

Luk. 1:44

taken, 1

2Th. 2:7

thundered, 1

Jn. 12:29

trembling, 1

Acts 16:29 (2)

turned, 1

Jn. 16:20

used, 1

1Th. 2:5

vanished, 1

Luk. 24:31

wait, 1

Acts 20:3

wept, 1

Acts 20:37

would, 1

Acts 20:16

years, 1

Heb. 11:24





15,818 posted on 11/19/2010 11:46:38 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15814 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
The demiurgic theology of Paul seems evident all over his Epistles, but nothing as clearly stated as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (see also Hebrews 1:2).

Then Paul could not have been a Christian since demiurgic theology and Christianity are absolutely mutually exclusive. To hold demiurgic theology REQUIRES that one utterly reject key sections (and large sections) of scripture. I don't see any other possibility.

And if Paul was not Christian then of course his claim to having received the true Gospel from Christ must have been a complete and utter lie. That would make the majority of the NT completely unreliable for its truth, since it was authored by a known liar. If that is the essence of the Church's position (and I hope that it isn't :), then I assume that the resolution is that the Church simply determines which of Paul's teachings are COMPLETE lies and should be ignored altogether, and which are only partial lies and can be salvaged through interpretation. But even so, it seems a little surprising that the Church would have ANYTHING to do at all with a Christian-murderer who never became Christian and was known to have been a serial liar.

Demooth is also used in Genesis 1:26 and corresponds to the Greek homoiosis, which is to say similitude, likeness. This is a qualitative term, not a physical image or representation. It is the quality man lost in the Fall, and it is the quality man must regain in order to be saved, i.e. become Christ-like or God-like.

Even so, the qualitative similarity could not possibly have included nature. Nobody thinks that Gen. 1:26 says that God and man share the same nature. However, Paul's use of "eikon" DID include nature. The only way Paul could have been Christian would be if there is more than one legitimate use of "eikon". Although a layman, Bruce Hurt gives at least a credible sounding explanation in his commentary on Col. 1:15. Please forgive the length, but here is an excerpt:

AND HE IS THE IMAGE: hos estin eikon: (Jn 14:9, 15:24 2Co 4:4,6) ----- "He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the unseen God" (Lightfoot)

Image (1504) (eikon) an artistic representation, as one might see on a coin or statue (an image or a likeness, as in Mt 22.20). Eikon can also refer to a visible manifestation of an invisible and heavenly reality form (see Hebrews 10:1) As used here in Colossians eikon speaks of an embodiment or living manifestation of God.

Eikon is used 23 times in the NAS (Matt. 22:20; Mk. 12:16; Lk. 20:24; Rom. 1:23; 8:29; 1 Co. 11:7; 15:49; 2 Co. 3:18; 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10; Heb. 10:1; Rev. 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) and in the NAS is translated as - form, 1; image, 19; likeness, 3. The KJV translates every use with "image."

Eikon is used 29 times in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint (LXX) (Gen. 1:26f; 5:1, 3; 9:6; Deut. 4:16; 2 Ki. 11:18; 2 Chr. 33:7; Ps. 39:6; 73:20; Isa. 40:19f; Ezek. 7:20; 16:17; 23:14; Dan. 2:31f, 34f; 3:1ff, 5, 7, 10ff, 14f, 18; Hos. 13:2), the first use being in Genesis where "God said "Let Us make man in Our image (LXX = eikon)...." (Genesis 1:26)

......... Paul in fact confirmed that man "is the image (eikon) and glory of God" (1 Cor 11:7). Paul went on to add that "just as we have borne the image (eikon) of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Cor 15:49)

Paul emphasized that Jesus is the image of the invisible God explaining in the case of unbelievers who are perishing "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image (eikon) of God." (2 Cor 4:4)

Believers are now being progressively transformed from a likeness to Adam into a likeness of Christ. Man was created in the image of God but the fall of man defaced this image and yet did not totally erase it. When one becomes a new creation in Christ a transformation begins taking place. Gradually the Holy Spirit transforms believers into the image of Christ, Who as Paul says here in Colossians 1:15 is Himself the image of the invisible God. And so we read that...

"we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being (present tense = speaks of a continual process of being) transformed (metamorphoo- word study) (~present tense salvation, sanctification, growth in holiness, being conformed to the image of Jesus) into the same image (eikon) from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." (2Cor 3:18)

Paul is saying that Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as He was before the Incarnation Jn 17:5 and is now.

Eikon is the basis for such English terms as icon ( a conventional religious image typically painted or engraved on a small wooden panel and venerated in Eastern Orthodox Churches), "iconography" (the illustration of a subject by drawing), or "iconoclast" (the medieval zealots who broke up religious statues and then anyone who attacks cherished beliefs or practices).

Wayne Detzler explains that......... "God created us in His image, and we are to be a living testimony to our Creator. Only one image is ordained by God to represent Him. This is the crown of His Creation, human beings. To form any other image as a representation of God is a violation of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, it is sheer blasphemy. This was the sin which Paul condemned so strongly in the prologue to his Roman Epistle (see note Romans 1:23)." (Detzler, Wayne A: New Testament Words in Today's Language)

In early Greek the eikon was an engraving of the Emperor's head on a coin but soon was also attached to a statue or a metal image. Likewise eikon was the copy of a picture or the embodiment of a certain virtue. This idea is seen in English phrases such as, "She is the `image' of loveliness."

The Jews rejected all images of God. The Ten Commandments forbade any casting of images, which was the sin into which Aaron fell at the foot of Sinai. In fact, the only image of God which is depicted in Scripture is man (Genesis 1:26). In this connection the New Testament uses the word eikon.

Eikon expresses two ideas. First, likeness, as in the image on a coin or the reflection in a mirror. Second, manifestation, with the sense that God is fully revealed in Jesus. Eikon does not denote mere likeness or resemblance. Eikon conveys the meaning that Christ is whatever God is--spiritual, omnipotent, omniscient, holy--all the attributes of the eternal God.

The idea that Paul is conveying with eikon is that the glorified Son sets forth, to those who behold Him, the nature and grandeur of the Eternal Father. The image includes the glorified manhood in which the Eternal Son presents in created and visible form the mental and moral nature of God. Men knew the Father because they had seen the Incarnate Son (Jn 14:9) The heretics falsely viewed Jesus as one among a series of lesser spirits descending in sequential inferiority from God. In this verse Paul refutes that with two powerful descriptions of who Jesus really is - the image or essence of God and the firstborn (see discussion below) or the one pre-eminent over all creation. Paul says that Jesus Christ is not a created being but that Christ is the essence of God made visible in the flesh. Christ is essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of God the Father. (emphasis added)

I see this explanation at least being on the right track as the only way one could possibly consider Paul a Christian. Otherwise, your analysis holds and Paul was not a Christian (as I interpret it).

15,819 posted on 11/19/2010 12:49:08 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15812 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
FK: It depends on how we define "human".

That sounds positively Clintonian. :)

Well, I suppose if it was as easy as it should be then we wouldn't lawfully be killing millions of our own children every year.

FK: I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.

FK, first human nature is created. Not even God can change that.

Why can't God change any part of what He has already created? He created our natures "as was", and since then they have been changed according to His will.

Second, the nature of all living things, not only human, is that they die. No exceptions.

But I believe you have correctly said before that this only applies AFTER the Fall, that is, after the human nature had first changed. IIRC, Orthodoxy sees the verse "the wages of sin is death" to refer to physical death. If so, then the Orthodox would see man's original nature as NOT including physical death. Do you see it differently now?

FK: Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will).

And therefore he is not like Adam.

Yes, in this sense. But in other senses, as the "second Adam" Christ is the antithesis of Adam. Adam doomed "the world" and Christ saved "the world".

15,820 posted on 11/19/2010 1:11:32 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15813 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis
So, what does in the "Protestant view" ginomai mean in 1 Cor 15:45? If I remember correctly, you said it meant Christ's mission or work. Your own definition doesn't support that, FK. Especially since Paul uses it only once for both Adam and Christ.

I don't actually remember saying that, but if I did I have no idea what I meant by it now. :) What I think it means now is that Adam BECAME a living soul from the dust in time. Likewise, Christ BECAME a life-giving spirit to humans in time, that is, once there WERE humans to receive it. That would seem to match verse 46: "The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual."

15,821 posted on 11/19/2010 1:54:07 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15815 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50
FK, I am curious. Why would anyone think a 19th century Protestant from NJ who likely never went to Greece, maybe even never knew a Greek, let alone a Greek Orthodox theologian, would be an authority on koine or Byzantine Greek?

I can only guess, but it may have to do with him being the first to organize the material in such a usable way. I believe his concordance is still the most widely used in the world across all Christian faiths. While it might surely have been a plus if he had had a Greek background, I don't see it as a negative that he didn't. I don't think knowledge is barred by bloodlines or anything like that. He certainly had the bonafides of a legitimate leading theologian of his day, and he must have done something right since his work has withstood the test of time with so many Christians. There's always going to be some disagreement in translating and people of all ethnic backgrounds are subject to having agendas.

15,822 posted on 11/20/2010 12:45:51 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15816 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
As a result of His death and resurrection, and with the latter being the context here, Jesus functionally became a life-giving spirit, as by faith in Him believers have life, not only eternal life but regeneration of the Spirit, (Eph. 2:1,5) who was not poured out upon all believers (Acts 2:17,18) until Jesus resurrection, (Jn. 7:39; 14:26) for "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (1Jn. 4:9)

Amen, and thanks for noting with great scriptural evidence the significance of the resurrection as support for the timing issue. His "becoming" is tied to His resurrection, NOT to His coming into existence. I really have to hand it to you for so many verse links. That's great. I don't know how you do it. :)

As far as being is concerned, as Jesus had to take on flesh, He essentially was/is spirit, as God the Father is, (Jn. 4:24) and after His resurrection appeared in a glorified, incorruptible physical body, not simply as a spirit, which could materialize at will yet eat food (Lk. 24:36-43) and which type of body believers will have, (1Cor. 15:49; 1Jn. 3:2) as "in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Cor. 15:22; and which is termed a spiritual body. (1Cor. 15:44,46)

Good point. There's another dagger in the "Paul thought Christ was created" argument. Paul obviously knew all the intricacies involved here. We learned many of them FROM him. :)

Also, thank you so much for the table on the uses of "ginomai". That's quite a list.

15,823 posted on 11/20/2010 1:05:42 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15817 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

“Amen, and thanks for noting with great scriptural evidence the significance of the resurrection as support for the timing issue.”

Thanks to God. The whole chapter is about resurrection, with that, or “risen” occurring at least 17 times, and is the continuing subject immediately before the text at issue. Moreover, to have Jesus being created as a spirit in v. 45 would be contrary to the order of v. 46, in which it is stated that that which is spiritual is not first, “but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual,” and which is contrary to what is stated concerning creation, as it is the invisible which gives birth to the visible. (Heb. 11:3)

In the subject of resurrection however, the incarnated Son of God became a life-giving spirit thru His death and resurrection, life giving because He makes the converted soul spiritually alive who was dead in sins and trespasses, so that the believer lives in the spirit, (Gal. 5:25) and spirit because that is essentially his nature, though not simply being a spirit but one with a “spiritual body,” which is what believer will have. How such can eat food and yet come through locked doors is beyond our knowledge, but that is what is revealed in the texts sited, and such is the nature of the spiritual world.

Rendering this as speaking about Jesus being created requires wresting the text out of its immediate context and supposing that Paul is introducing a novel doctrine which is contrary to what he and the other writers say on the issue. Such attempts typically evidence the extremes some will go to in seeking to construe contradictions out of texts which in reality are part of the complementary nature of Divine revelation.

“the table on the uses of “ginomai”. That’s quite a list.”

And in which makes it obvious that it is by no way restricted as referring to coming into existence. And that translation is no easy thing.


15,824 posted on 11/20/2010 4:56:16 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15823 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
In the subject of resurrection however, the incarnated Son of God became a life-giving spirit thru His death and resurrection, life giving because He makes the converted soul spiritually alive who was dead in sins and trespasses, so that the believer lives in the spirit, (Gal. 5:25) and spirit because that is essentially his nature, though not simply being a spirit but one with a “spiritual body,” which is what believer will have. How such can eat food and yet come through locked doors is beyond our knowledge, but that is what is revealed in the texts sited, and such is the nature of the spiritual world.

Wonderfully said, thanks be to God. In his sermon yesterday our Pastor touched on our spiritual bodies. In joking about playing a harp on a cloud for eternity he affirmed that we will not only have bodies but will be DOING things in Heaven. That is, in addition to worshiping. I really don't know, but it's interesting to think about.

15,825 posted on 11/22/2010 2:04:28 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15824 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

Yes, what “ shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?” (Psalms 116:12) To be able to give, and show gratitude is a privilege.

“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. {3} And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:” (Revelation 22:2-3)


15,826 posted on 11/22/2010 5:54:18 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15825 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Thanks for interleaving the color coding in addition to bullet points and italics -- it makes each poster's successive points that much easier to follow.

Cheers!

15,827 posted on 01/30/2011 7:50:10 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15764 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Its for my benefit as much as others. Glad if they like it.


15,828 posted on 01/30/2011 7:23:04 PM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15827 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 15,651-15,70015,701-15,75015,751-15,80015,801-15,828 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson