FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 15 Nov 2018, 08:17

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Extra Smileys: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/misc.p ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 21 Sep 2015, 06:21 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Advanced Notice: I am unable to add highlighting to the Hebrew text due to the way it operates from right to left. It's not an issue with Greek; but this will unfortunately make it harder for people who can't read Hebrew and I apologize.

After thinking about John 10:34's "you are gods", it made me realize that this proves Christ's deity, as He was the first (and only) God-Man, allowing us to become "like God" through Him (of course whether one does or doesn't want God's thinking is up to them). Naturally I got curious to the unitarian point of view-- and caused me to go through multiple sources of arguments. They didn't seem to think verse 34 was important. then again trinitarians probably ignore it, too.

First we'll get into ProveYourFaith's video on ignoring passive / active and context pertaining to John 3:13 -- basically he says both the Greek and Hebrew are the same and thus create a contradiction, so they have to be negated and Christ's statement of ascending *of His own power* is nullified.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeoTh3snfl0

Quote:
John 3:13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν (verb indicative perfect active 3rd person singular) εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
(LXX) 2 Kings 2:11 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἅρμα πυρὸς καὶ ἵπποι πυρὸς καὶ διέστειλαν ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων καὶ ἀνελήμφθη (verb indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular) Ηλιου ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2 Kings 2:11 וַיְהִ֗י הֵ֣מָּה הֹלְכִ֤ים הָלוֹךְ֙ וְדַבֵּ֔ר וְהִנֵּ֤ה רֶֽכֶב־אֵשׁ֙ וְס֣וּסֵי אֵ֔שׁ וַיַּפְרִ֖דוּ בֵּ֣ין שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם וַיַּ֙עַל֙ אֵ֣לִיָּ֔הוּ בַּֽסְּעָרָ֖ה הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃


To go through it quickly, Elijah went up with God's power (passively) via the windstorm, and Christ ascended via Himself (actively), since Christ was doing the action. LXX included to show this as well, albeit the LXX isn't inspired of course.

Note: Often 1 Corinthians 15:50 is used by trinitarians to say "flesh and blood" can't *enter* into heaven to refute unitarians (thus 'proving' John 3:13). This is incorrect however, as Paul was saying flesh and blood can't *inherit* the Kingdom of God-- inheriting the kingdom is not the same as entering (re: royal priesthood). And since Elijah was taken up (by God), it's safe to say that 1 Corinthians 15:50 would even have less relevance in that regard; so this does no good for proving John 3:13 and adds more confusion.

Now we'll take some quotes from biblicalunitarian.com on John 3:13 to get it out of the way
Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-3-13
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
The Jews would not have taken John’s words to mean that Christ “incarnated.” It was common for them to say that something “came from heaven” if God were its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. Most Christians experience the Lord blessing them by way of other people or events, but realize that the ultimate source of the blessings was the Lord. We should apply John’s words the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan, and then God directly fathered Jesus.


Here biblicalunitarian.com is taking a different stance from proveyourfaith, they claim Christ's statement of 'no man has ascended up to heaven' as being a figurative ascension as relating to James 1:17: so "Christ" is from "above" in the sense from God. So let's see if the words and contexts match up:
Quote:
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν (adverb) ἐστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.
John 3:13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν (verb indicative perfect active 3rd person singular) εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.


James 1:17's "above" is an adverb. Whereas the "ascend" in John 3:13 is active and in context means that *CHRIST* is doing the action (actively). If we were to accept biblicalunitarian.com's argument, John 3:13 would also have to use an adverb for ascension, it does not. So they've shown that they rely on English tranlsations and ecumenical philosophy to make an assumption. That and the context wouldn't even work if we were to assume Christ is a 'good thing' (adverb) from God when speaking to the audience, and we would also have to ignore the fact Christ was literally referring to ascending to Heaven on His own power: of which the Jewish audience at the time would be familiar with since 2 Kings 2:11 uses passive and not active since Elijah did not do it of his own power.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
There are also verses that say Jesus was “sent from God,” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Mal. 3:10 – KJV). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven.

Jesus was "sent" by the Father, but that's not what John 3:13 is getting into. That's like if I said I like the flavour of apples, and then someone else claimed I hate bananas. Sure we're dealing with fruit, but the contexts and situations are different.
#1 Christ claimed He ascended by His own power (active - NOT an adverb), anyone who knows Greek will understand the concept
#2 The Father sending Christ is not (directly) related to Christ's ascending of His own power
#3 John the Baptist did not claim to ascend of His own power (active)
#4 biblicalunitarian.com just starts to attempt to compare English synonyms that aren't in any way shape or form related to the original language text in question.
Basically the rest of their article focuses on "sent" which as we've seen in the Greek has nothing to do with what they're trying to make the Bible say.

Moving on to John 2:19. Again Christ uses active (meaning HE'S doing the action in question) *indicative of future*, and of course that makes sense since the "temple" (Him) was to be raised up in the future of the context of the verse:
Quote:
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ (verb indicative future active 1st person singular) αὐτόν.


Let's take a look at what biblicalunitarian has to say:
Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-2-19
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

Ahhh... but if we say that the Father and Son are the same essence (Godhead | trinity), then BOTH statements are simultaneously correct and thus prove the trinity. So they've just inadvertently proven the trinity by themselves. Of course they claim that if both were simultaneously were correct it would be a "contradiction", but it wouldn't if Christ claims deity...
Take notice that biblicalunitarian.com and proveyourfaith both keep chanting "the Bible cannot contradict itself", yeah but they're using that as an excuse whenever anything contradicts what THEY say and PROVES the trinity.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 – NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

That's more of a narration than a refutation of 'ἡμέραις' being future active. Christ raised Himself up (and at the same time the Father raised Him up). Also Christ was not speaking in 'veiled terms' but DIRECTLY explaining the temple analogy, the Jews didn't get the reference since they were assuming the temple was physical the whole time (so it was veiled to them through THEIR own ignorance), when it never was because...:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16 Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν;

Christ is the temple, and the temple is IN US as a result. Not only does 1 Corinthians 3:16 shoot down the 'veiled terms' argument from biblicalunitarian.com (and I'm not even sure where they were going with that but it's wrong), but it also links the essence of Christ and the H.S. together.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

#1 Jesus was not speaking in veiled terms, but very literal terms that any believer understands per 1 Corinthians 3:16. The focus is NEVER on the physical
#2 Christ raised Himself, and the Father raised Christ *simultaneously* (they keep repeating this as they can't answer it directly)
#3 The fact that [some] of the Jews being against Jesus have nothing to do with Christ being the temple and ascending to heaven on His own power
#4 Unbelievers not understanding that Christ is the temple has nothing to do with the fact that He is, and ascended to heaven on His own power
#5 John 2:19 is essential for solidifying the fact that the emphasis is not on the physical, but the mental / spiritual.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”

#1 Again they keep repeating veiled terms; but we know it was never veiled.
#2 The statement of Christ "fully obeying" 'the Will of the Father' doesn't exist, and in fact creates a contradiction:
Quote:
John 6:40 And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on Him, will have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

If Christ had to perform the 'Will of the Father', He would have to believe in Himself for salvation. But wait! Biblicalunitarian.com tells us there are no contradictions and they've just created one!
#3 Again biblicalunitarian.com is playing word games with the English by saying it was Christ's 'destiny' to say it without Him (Christ) actioning it. In the Greek (ἐγερῶ) means that the action is CHRIST raising the temple Himself and not anyone else.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

#1 as we've shown in the Greek, ἐγερῶ means that Christ *was* doing it in the active. So only if you are ignorant of what the Bible actually says will you make a claim of John 2:19 being in the 'passive' of Christ not actually doing it Himself.
#2 the "you" (ὑμεῖς) in Acts 5:30 is NOT active like the "raised" (ἐγερῶ) in John 2:19. Acts 5:30 actually disproves biblicalunitarian.com's claim as a result:
Quote:
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hung on a tree.
Acts 5:30 ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς (pronoun personal nominative plural) διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου·
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ (verb indicative future active 1st person singular) αὐτόν.

#3 No, the "types" of wording are very clear in the original language texts since they utilize characteristics not found in English, thus not conveyed in translation and allowing interpretations to be based with translations
#4 again, Christ raised Himself (according to the Greek, and only 'debatable' in the English)

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

Again, Christ directly raised Himself up per the original language text.

With that out of the way (which will be required to understand John 10), we have sufficiently proved that Christ ascended by His own Power and subsequently raised the temple Himself (for He is the temple: and the Father also simultaneously raised 'the Temple' per Godhead). Now let's get into John 10 which is heading back towards 'you are gods'.

Here are the main set of verses:
Quote:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them: "many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?"
John 10:32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε;
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying: "for a good work we don't stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.
John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "is it not written in your law that I say: you are gods?"
John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε
...
John 10:38 But if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in Him.
John 10:38 εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύετε, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί.


Quote:
Psalm 82:6 I say: you are gods and all of you are children of the most High
Psalm 81:6 ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες
Psalm 82:6 אֲֽנִי־אָ֭מַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִ֣ים אַתֶּ֑ם וּבְנֵ֖י עֶלְי֣וֹן כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃


And now let us see what biblicaluintarian says on the subject.

Here is the video of John W. Schoenheit with some commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=526&v=k0JVVlWQonI
Schoenheit's statement could probably be summed up with one paraphrased quote: "I and my father are of one purpose / one heart / united / one goal - what a wonderful statement for Jesus to make". Basically, his argument is that "one" actually means "one purpose" (and not 'one essence'). He further extrapolates this by using the NIV's translation of 1 Corinthians 3:8's "one purpose".

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 – KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”


The unitarians then argue that because believers can be 'one' and God is 'one', this then refers to: 'one in purpose' (both for God and believers). They will then cite this verse:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 3:8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
1 Corinthians 3:8 ὁ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, ἕκαστος δὲ τὸν ἴδιον μισθὸν λήμψεται κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον κόπον·

As believers when we become trichotomous, are indeed 'one' with God since we're receiving the Holy Spirit who is a member of the Godhead:
Quote:
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, just as I (plural).
John 17:11 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς (pronoun personal nominative plural from ego).


#1 None of the Apostles or anyone in the Bible ever says 'they are one' with the Father. Being one with the Father is a unique statement that only Christ claims.
#2 The Jews went to STONE Christ after He said "I and the Father are one", and their reaction was that you're a MAN and you make *yourself God*.
#3 Believers are 'one' when they get the Holy Spirit; which is explicitly why this analogy is used with the planting and watering. You can't do that as an unbeliever, and as a result are not trichotomous and lack the Holy Spirit. That's not to say we become a trinity, but we get God's essence.
#4 'One' in the Greek *does not mean* 'alike'
#5 'One' in the Greek *does not mean* 'one purpose'
#6 If Christ was only claiming 'one purpose' the Jews wouldn't have went to stone Him because that wouldn't be claiming deity
#7 In John 17:11, if we were to accept 'one' being 'one purpose', that means Christ would have always have to have been one purpose (as his claim), as opposed to us BECOMING 'one purpose'. Which means Christ would have always been in that state, anyways. So in a way, that would disprove unitarianism by their own terminology.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. Christ uses the concept of “being one” in other places, and from them one can see that “one purpose” is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children “one.” In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” We think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.

#1 as we have previously say, John 17:11 is used to affirm receiving the Holy Spirit, in which you get God's essence.
#2 in other verses that use 'one', THEY STILL DON'T UTILIZE 'X and the Father are one'. The key is 'father' and 'one'. So let's review their claim:

Quote:
John 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also the scattered children of God, gathered into one.
John 11:52 καὶ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, just as I (plural).
John 17:11 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς (pronoun personal nominative plural from ego).
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.


In the Greek it starts to look a lot different and English translations start to allow for more contradictory statements. John 11:52 has nothing in common with Christ's statement in John 10:30 (and you'll notice ἐσμεν is added whereas John 11:52 lacks it), and in John 17:11 'εἰς ἕν' isn't directly stated...

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
3. The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the “sheep,” the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.

But if Christ is 'one purpose' with God, and we're 'one purpose' with God, does that mean that we also are to keep and protect the sheep, and that no one can take them out of OUR hands as well?
The problem of glossing over all of these unique terms in Greek and slapping on 'one purpose', the unique attributes and statements start to also apply to us, so this turns Christ into a 'useless middleman'. If we're 'one purpose' with God, then we get the same attributes as Christ, since we would HAVE to be 'one purpose' with the father as well to make unitarianism consistent.
Doctrine broken.

Now let's see what biblical unitarian has to say about John 10:33 (when the Jews pick up the stones after Christ says He and the Father 'one'):
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when “God” is meant, the noun theos has the definite article. When there is no article, the translators know that “god” is the more likely translation, and they are normally very sensitive to this. For example, in Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translated it “god.” The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, “they changed their minds and said he was a god.” Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated “a god.” It is a general principle that theos without the article should be “a god,” or “divine.” Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was “God.” On the other hand, Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”


Okay, let's go through the 'theos' claim, for starters Greek (unlike English) uses a lot of conjugations, all of which have been ignored by 'biblicalunitarian.com'. In green is an explanation of the corresponding conjugation (and I've made all of the GOD words in capital, since capitalization doesn't matter and was never used in the original Greek, as context and *common sense* would allow you to distinguish):

Quote:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
...
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying: "for a good work we don't stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself GOD.
John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν (noun accusative masculine singular common).
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "is it not written in your law that I say: you are GODS?"
John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί(noun nominative masculine plural common)ἐστε
John 10:35 If He called them GODS, unto whom the word of GOD came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς (noun accusative masculine plural common) πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (noun genitive masculine singular common) ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή,
...
Acts 12:22 And the people gave a shout, saying: "It is the voice of a GOD, and not of a man".
Acts 12:22 ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει· Θεοῦ (noun genitive masculine singular common) φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου.
Acts 28:6 However they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a GOD.
Acts 28:6 οἱ δὲ προσεδόκων αὐτὸν μέλλειν πίμπρασθαι ἢ καταπίπτειν ἄφνω νεκρόν. ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ αὐτῶν προσδοκώντων καὶ θεωρούντων μηδὲν ἄτοπον εἰς αὐτὸν γινόμενον μεταβαλόμενοι ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν (noun accusative masculine singular common).


'Theos' doesn't necessarily need an article to explicitly refer to God, but biblicalunitarian is trying to say that the 'GOD' in John 10:33 was a 'lesser god'.
Creating some bizarre artificial distinguisher causes a lot of chaos. If GOD doesn't refer to the GOD of the Bible, it refers to one that's made up. That's it. There are no other contexts for the word.
So, if Christ wasn't claiming to be God, He would be claiming to be 'another God' not of the Bible. But if He was claiming to be 'another God', the Jews wouldn't have went to stone Him... so you hit a brick wall and the Jews have to be making the statement that Christ is claiming to be the God of the Bible. Otherwise they wouldn't have a problem with it
Now, let's find some verses that lack a definitive article which do point to God (of the Bible). After a few seconds:
Quote:
Romans 3:5 εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω.

No definitive article, and Paul is absolutely referring to God (of the Bible). So again, biblicalunitarian.com is making reflex responses without bothering to verifying the claim because they don't want it to be true. If you absolutely don't want something to be true, why would you bother to double-check?

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. We take issue with the NIV translation of “mere man” for the Greek word anthropos. The English word “anthropology,” meaning “the study of man,” is derived from anthropos. Spiros Zodhiates writes, “man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals.” [1] In the vast majority of versions, anthropos is translated as “man.” The word anthropos occurs 550 times in the Greek text from which the NIV was translated, yet the NIV translated it as “mere man” only in this one verse. This variance borders on dishonesty and demonstrates a willingness to bias the text beyond acceptable limits. Unfortunately, the NIV is not the only translation that puts a Trinitarian spin on this verse. The Jews would have never called Jesus a “mere” man. They called him what they believed he was—a “man.” They were offended because they believed that he, “being a man, made himself a god (i.e., someone with divine status).

This statement makes absolutely no sense since they're trying desperately so hard to change the context "anthropos!!! NIV!!! trinitarian bias!! lower case 'god' with divine status!!!". GOD either means GOD OF BIBLE or NOT GOD OF BIBLE. That's it. There's no such thing as GOD referring to 'divine status'. You won't find that anywhere, period. That's changing *the very definition* of what the terminology 'GOD' is.

Quote:
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying: "for a good work we don't stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself GOD.
John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν


So let's break it down:
καὶ (and) ὅτι (because) σὺ (you) ἄνθρωπος (noun nominative masculine singular common) (man) ὢν ποιεῖς (make) σεαυτὸν (yourself) θεόν (GOD)

The Greek is actually far more direct and literal. you man MAKE yourself GOD. And dropping the article actually makes it more broad because it becomes GOD and not 'a' God, or 'the' God-- but **GOD**.
So a man who straight up makes himself **GOD**.

Moving forward, the biblical unitarians skip right past John 10:34 and go to John 10:38:
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. In most versions, though not all, this phrase is rendered, “…the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.” Trinitarian theology understands this to mean the Son and Father are unified in essence, and thus to be “in” one another, it is claimed, is to be mystically one-and-the-same in being, though remaining as separate, individual persons. This understanding of the phrase is biblically unsustainable, however. Only when the verse is isolated from other verses that use the same language and read from the perspective of an already developed Trinitarian theology, does it have the meaning Trinitarians ascribe to it. To get to the truth of what the verse means, we must read the entirety of Jesus’ teaching on this subject and let that guide our interpretation. There are two other passages in John where Jesus speaks of the same thing: John 14:10-23 and John 17:21-23. These shed light on his meaning here. When we study those passages, we see that the Lord has in mind being unified in purpose, and his words make no sense if they are understood in a Trinitarian sense.


Okay, I'll have to address the throng of other verses biblicalunitarian.com keeps circling around since this is starting to go past my original point (I'll address them in additional posts when I have some time).

Back to the meat of what I was intending to write about:
Quote:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "is it not written in your law that I say: you are GODS?"
John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί(noun nominative masculine plural common)ἐστε


We are 'GODS' because of getting Christ's thinking, the H.S. etc. In other words, God makes us like Him, not us. And that's only possible via the GOD-MAN Jesus Christ (who 'ascended' by His own power). There were a lot of other links and stuff which I forgot / didn't have the time to cover, so, hopefully that will be continued in posts to come.


Last edited by hupostasis on 28 Sep 2015, 07:09, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2015, 18:01 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
If we are indeed Gods, being in union with Christ, does that mean that hupostasis is extended to Church Age believers as a whole (to a lesser degree)?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Sep 2015, 07:31 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Anonynomemon wrote:
If we are indeed Gods, being in union with Christ, does that mean that hupostasis is extended to Church Age believers as a whole (to a lesser degree)?

Hupostasis in the sense of 'GOD-MAN', yes I believe that would be correct (also as you mentioned only possible in this dispensation due to requiring Christ). Since Christ was the first GOD-MAN, we're then pitted to follow suite with Bible Doctrine. Which of course means we have a lot of thinking and learning to do. Of course Christ was a lot more effective at assimilating B.D. than we are, but that's why we have a lifetime and 1 John 1:9. Still... it can be disconerting, at least for me.

It's only possible through Christ and He had to be the GOD-MAN as a result. If we jump back to John 10:33 and 34, you can see Christ referencing this. We're 'GODS' as a result of the GOD-MAN, and that wouldn't have been possible without Christ... which is why He brought it up exactly then and there when they said "you make yourself GOD". Well yeah, He's 'GOD' so they too can be 'GODS' (which means He would have to have been Messiah, but they never caught on).

Of course... the (wrong) interpretation would be to say that Christ was claiming to be "a GOD" for credibility in response. But to take that viewpoint you break too many doctrines and would have to filter out information.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Sep 2015, 18:29 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I tend to agree with you about the unique quality of the Church Age, but Jesus quoted Psalm 82, when He said, "you are Gods". So what did that mean for Israel? We know this was before the hypostatic union, so was this an acknowledgment of a future age of corporate hupostasis?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 07:01 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Anonynomemon wrote:
I tend to agree with you about the unique quality of the Church Age, but Jesus quoted Psalm 82, when He said, "you are Gods". So what did that mean for Israel? We know this was before the hypostatic union, so was this an acknowledgment of a future age of corporate hupostasis?


I'm glad you brought that up because I was trying to solve that conflict after I wrote what I had said. Since my forte is not the hypostatic union (and I'm still going through the O.T.), I could only think of these conclusions:
A) Psalm 82:6 - present only in church age
*poses the problem of what was provisioned to Israel
B) Psalm 82:6 - present in church age and previous dispensations
*poses the problem that Christ wasn't the GOD-MAN yet during Psalm 82
C) Israel had a different provision for it. (i.e. salvation being always the same 'believe', but now 'believe Christ paid for your sins'-- likewise the same system could have existed pre-church age but in a different form)
*poses the inquiry of what exactly is added with the hypostatic union being completed (now)

I think what I'm going to go with is that after Israel rejected Messiah, the become-like the 'GOD-MAN' upgrades "ye are gods" (C). I'm not entirely satisfied with that because I don't know the pre-upgraded version would be. The biggest support for this that I have-- is that Israel also had the mechanic of refilling of the holy spirit (Psalm 32:5). But since the refilling of the holy spirit is 'a' hupostasis, we know the concept was active, just not the hypostatic union in real time per Christ.

In that sense... if "ye are gods" leans on the GOD-MAN, we could also say that the re-filling also leans on Christ's payment on the cross despite the fact Christ hadn't paid sins yet.

To solve it, I would need to know what exactly the hypostatic union does to upgrade learning Bible Doctrine / what would happen without the hypostatic union for learning Bible Doctrine. Finally, if there was also a 'version' of "GOD-MAN = ye are gods" extant pre-church age.

This results in four major belief categories:
#1 GOD-MAN and "ye are gods" are not related
#2 GOD-MAN = ye are gods has always existed without upgrade (hypostatic union didn't have to wait for Christ in the flesh)
#3 GOD-MAN = ye are gods was upgraded per rejection of messiah by Israel resulting in church age (reliant on Christ in the flesh)
#4 GOD-MAN doesn't exist, and "ye are gods" is some ecumenical statement (this would be the biblical unitarian take I imagine)

Again I think I'm going to go with #3 with a bit of #2, technically the hypostatic union wouldn't have to wait for Christ to be in the flesh for the concept to exist since God is infinite. There *was* definitely an upgrade to the process of learning Bible Doctrine when Israel rejected. I'll just have to stop my philosophy and study pertinent verses when I have a chance, which won't be for awhile. I don't consider myself qualified to go this deep with it yet.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 07:14 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Probably Hebrews 8:8-12 bookending with 10:15-17 quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34 ties in. That the reversal of the text in Heb10:15-17 answers the question of why, since hupostasis is the KeyName for Christ in that book (1:3, 3:14, 11:1). But I'm not sure exactly how yet, either. The point of the book is that we get 'better things' (Attick kreittwn) as a result of Him dying, so the priesthood is higher. Specifically, the Rapture passage Heb11:39-40, that Israel's time cannot resume until we are completed.

Stands to reason the spiritual life has to be higher because He was rejected, and a new priesthood thus has to be called out. Ergo 8:8-12 bookending NEW COVENANT (kaine ktsis invoked, playing on Paul in 2Cor5:21, maybe) -- which is the theme of Hebrews, tying to Psalm 110 which ties to 82 (which is mistranslated, corr trans videos start here).

But how all these connections work, I don't yet fully know how to explain, either. Logically it makes sense to say there must be a compensation in the loss of spiritual growth in aggregate, for the fact He was rejected as Groom when down here. Doesn't mean the Jews lose, because any Jew who believes during Church is part of it, just as any Gentile, so we all get the higher 'new' covenant' as a precursor to implementing the Millennial 'new covenant' (are made the impetus for it).

So it will be interesting to see what y'all come up with.

PS: sorry to use transliteration, I've not yet installed Bibleworks on this computer. My other one's hard drive died last week. Verses, if wrong, will be corrected after I install it, but I think the verses cited are the right ones. Not the only ones.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 15:11 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
hupostasis wrote:
Anonynomemon wrote:
I tend to agree with you about the unique quality of the Church Age, but Jesus quoted Psalm 82, when He said, "you are Gods". So what did that mean for Israel? We know this was before the hypostatic union, so was this an acknowledgment of a future age of corporate hupostasis?


I'm glad you brought that up because I was trying to solve that conflict after I wrote what I had said. Since my forte is not the hypostatic union (and I'm still going through the O.T.).


I've mentioned this in another topic, but look at the correlation between Joel 2 and Acts 2.

[Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:]

Clearly these prophecies are eschatological in nature. They're probably Millennia too, but they where given to Israel first, then upon their rejection of Christ, they were duplicated for the Church (yet they will still happen for Israel too).

So if Joel 2 resulted in corporate hupostasis for the Church, then maybe it can be said that Joel 2 was a plan of corporate hupostasis for Israel in the Millennium. In that case, Psalm 82:6 could be an acknowledgment of a Millennial promise as well as pending possitional truth in Christ. Like saying,'Ye are called Gods because in Christ you will be Gods.'

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2015, 14:52 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
I added bolding in your quote, to focus on those items in it.

Anonynomemon wrote:
(L)ook at the correlation between Joel 2 and Acts 2.

Acts wrote:
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:


Clearly these prophecies are eschatological in nature. They're probably Millennia too, but they where given to Israel first, then upon their rejection of Christ, they were duplicated for the Church (yet they will still happen for Israel too).

So if Joel 2 resulted in corporate hupostasis for the Church, then maybe it can be said that Joel 2 was a plan of corporate hupostasis for Israel in the Millennium. In that case, Psalm 82:6 could be an acknowledgment of a Millennial promise as well as pending positional truth in Christ. Like saying,'Ye are called Gods because in Christ you will be Gods.'


Yeah, makes sense. Also ties with New Covenant, Jeremiah 3:16 and 31:31-34, quoted in Heb 8:8-12 through 10:15-17, which implies actual, not merely positional. The Bridal covenant, not salvation, but eternal role. So Brideship refused, Vashti refused to come (betrothal = marriage in the ancient world), so new Bride to highways and byways (Matt 16 through 22), so then the old covenant can still be met (Matt 24). Any Jew who believes during Church is part of it, so doesn't miss out on the old promise, now upgraded (Attick kreittwn, keyword in book of Hebrews, better things, see Heb 11:39-40).

Beneath all this seems to be a DOCTRINE that 'godliness' is defined as Bible running through your head (theme of 1 Cor1:5, His Words in your words, can't see that clever wordplay in English). So then yes, 'gods' in the sense that Divine Thinking circulates, which is why we don't die immediately upon being saved.

At death, we get bodies like His (1John 2:26-3:2, parallel passages in Cor by Paul, I forget where). So that completes the transition. So though finite can truly be called 'gods' because the INTERFACE is Divine. Instead of David's You, with me! Of Psalm 23, it's You, In Me! which is true for us now, 'Christ in you, the confidence of glory' (Col 1:25-27). Trying to flesh out this idea, is DDNA.htm .

Forensic, functional 'gods' though still finite. For HE is finite. Cloning His Thinking then would be the goal, right? My pastor spent decades analysing this, among others. Philippians 1:20 seems to be the key, Greek verb megalunw, to magnify by multiplying a crop, same verb as Mary uses in the Magnificat. Then of course you have the seed parables (said more than once, so stated more than one way in the Gospels), all the 'in Him' verses, Paul's use of auxzanw (=to grow), karpos (=fruit=profit, another agricultural term), etc.

Makes sense, for why and how else would it be pleasing to God to see us? We like it when others share thinking, so how is it we don't realize THAT is the goal, not good deeds? Right?

Which is underscored by the epainon anaphora in Eph1:3-14, which in verse 14 says in effect, that we BECOME His Glory. Not merely reporting it. Videos showing that conclusion, begin here or here (latter is derivative sleuthing about how Paul accounts Bible's version of BC/AD using the anaphora, former is on how Paul uses the anaphora to plot Church historical trends using the first 434+56 years post Christ's Birth as the paradigm).

I'm still shocked by that. He's God, He can do anything. How, I don't know. But it makes sense, as a Bride must be Fit for Her Husband.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 21:01 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
brainout wrote:
Probably Hebrews 8:8-12 bookending with 10:15-17 quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34 ties in. That the reversal of the text in Heb10:15-17 answers the question of why, since hupostasis is the KeyName for Christ in that book (1:3, 3:14, 11:1). But I'm not sure exactly how yet, either. The point of the book is that we get 'better things' (Attick kreittwn) as a result of Him dying, so the priesthood is higher. Specifically, the Rapture passage Heb11:39-40, that Israel's time cannot resume until we are completed.

Stands to reason the spiritual life has to be higher because He was rejected, and a new priesthood thus has to be called out. Ergo 8:8-12 bookending NEW COVENANT (kaine ktsis invoked, playing on Paul in 2Cor5:21, maybe) -- which is the theme of Hebrews, tying to Psalm 110 which ties to 82 (which is mistranslated, corr trans videos start here).

But how all these connections work, I don't yet fully know how to explain, either. Logically it makes sense to say there must be a compensation in the loss of spiritual growth in aggregate, for the fact He was rejected as Groom when down here. Doesn't mean the Jews lose, because any Jew who believes during Church is part of it, just as any Gentile, so we all get the higher 'new' covenant' as a precursor to implementing the Millennial 'new covenant' (are made the impetus for it).

So it will be interesting to see what y'all come up with.

PS: sorry to use transliteration, I've not yet installed Bibleworks on this computer. My other one's hard drive died last week. Verses, if wrong, will be corrected after I install it, but I think the verses cited are the right ones. Not the only ones.


I'm interested in developing the possibility of the Hypostatic Ages.

The obvious Hypostatic Age was spanned from the Birth to Ascension of Christ.

From that point, the Church received the indwelling of the Trinity. So this establishes Corporate Hypostasis on the basis of Retroactive Position Truth. This is the basis of our spiritual production (Abiding in Christ via 1 John 1:9).

But what about Israel? They were called Gods in Psalm 82:6, so I guess that is Prospective Positional Truth (looking towards the cross). So Abraham had to be CREDITED Righteousness for his spiritual productions.

Church produces works in real-time, but Israel had to be credited.

If Israel and Church were/are betrothed, then they would need Corporate Hypostasis to appropriately reflect Christ's Hypostatic Glory.

Am I making sense so far???

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 22:56 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Need elaboration on "Church produces works in real-time, but Israel has to be credited." Not clear what you mean by that.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 23:47 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@Brainout

Well, I meant that presently, we have the filling of the Holy Spirit when we are in fellowship with God. So our spiritual production happens in real-time as long as we remain in the divine dynasphere. However, in Israel's time, they did not have the filing of the Holy Spirit, but Abraham was still able to produce works by faith. I assume that God wrote him an IOU (credited Righteousness for works of faith) on the basis that fellowship still existed via citing sins.

Either way, we know that everyone's works will be judged for both believers and non-believers, so even if Israel didn't have the universal filling of the Spirit, God expected believers to have spiritual production.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 00:13 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
IOU? Okay, then you've not heard the Colonel distinguish pimplemi (Hebrew is sabea) for the Holy Spirit's filling back in the OT, i.e., for Saul prophesying, for the patriarchs, for the writing of CANON?

Sabea you know, means to fill up as with a good meal. Pimplemi is the same. So it's temporary, physically-related, lower level of empowerment than the Filling we get, which is plerow (lit., to fill up a ship or a woman with cargo).

So you want to try rewording what you just wrote? Or rethink it? Because IOU.. that can't be the meaning.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 02:14 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@Brainout

No, I haven't heard him talk about that, but thank you for bringing it up. So Israel was empowered (perhaps influenced) by the Holy Spirit, whereas the Church is filled?

Either way, it was a mechanism for spiritual production.

My point is that Israel seems to have foreshadowed the Church in many ways. Even though the Church was founded on the New Covenant, it recieved blessings that were originally intended for Israel (like Joel 2). Lately, after getting deeper into the 7 Letters of Revelation, it seems to me that the Church and Israel together form the Bride. More like the Church is an extension of the Bride, only under the New Covenant (since Israel caused the detour in 30 AD).

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I see some issues that the Colonel hasn't fully explained in the lessons I have.

1) The Colonel said the satellite city of New Jerusalem is the City of Abraham (per Heb 11:9-16), and for his seed. Yet Rev 21 calls it the BRIDE and includes elements of both Israel and the Church in its description.

2) The Colonel reiterates that only winners will have access to the Tree of Life (in which I agree with him), but Rev 22 goes on to say that loser believers wont even have access to the city at all. So if New Jerusalem is the Bride/Church, then its a broken body.


From what I can tell, all believers post Abraham are called his spiritual seed. And it seems that certain members/generations of Israel cancelled their betrothal with Christ, but not all (hence the need for the Church Age). Notice that not all of the branches in Romans 11 were removed, only some.

So why do we assume that Church replaced Israel's status as Bride? And why assume that ALL of Church is the Bride, when we are only Betrothed?

It seems that Bema will ultimately determine who of the Betrothed are to become the Bride.

If you feel that we should not discuss this until I've covered all 7 Letters, thats fine, but at least think about the points I raised. It seems to be an issue of Spiritual Production, Experiential Sanctification of the soul, and Betrothal. Not so much of Israel vs Church. The Bride must reflect Christ's thinking. That requires Bride that knows His mind.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 07:20 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
You're asking the right questions. That all Church is Bride, is in Ephesians 5, the analogy of filling to the Body. We know not all are filled, and that we are all Body of Christ, so to equate Brideship to Body in that passage, makes it clear.

Bride is harem. So not all the harem get to follow the King, not all the harem get to live in the palace, not all the harem are accompanying the king where he goes. Vashti was never divorced, but never to see the King again, either.

There can only be one Bride. It's not plural.

Not saying that the above is conclusive, but it does justify the usual claim that Church BRIDESHIP (only) replaces, and that Church=Body=Bride.

Two walls in Ephesians, so Vashti is never divorced.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 19:09 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@Brainout

I'm glad you brought up Ephesians 5. Look at verse 3-5.

Quote:
Ephesians5:3But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.


These sins are grounds for divorce or cancellation of Betrothal, but as you said, God does not divorce, only the believer can refuse Betrothal.

So a believer cancels bethrothal by refusing to learn the Mind of Christ. The evidence for this is that you can't even enter the Wedding or New Jerusalem without having clean garments (experiential sanctification).

I'm not talking about multiple brides, but one single Bride; Israel and Church grafted together as the Spiritual Seed of Abraham. That explains why New Jerusalem is called both Bride and Abraham's city. Romans 11 talks about the grafting of the branches. Even though the grafted branches are from wild trees, once grafted together they form one tree, not plurality.

To separate the Harem into classes (sanctified vs unsanctified) implies plurality. One harem for New Jerusalem, the other harem on earth (or outer darkness).

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 20:29 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
You got a problem there, pilgrim (not trying to refute, but rather refine): Hebrews 10:5-14. That's on sanctification, but positional. Experiential sanctification is distinctly the maturation, but the term for experiential sanct is theological, not Biblical. In Bible, you have instead stages of maturation, i.e., 1John2. So now go through both passages and see if you don't find a need to refine your post?


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 01:33 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@Brainout

Thanks for those passages. I was specifically referring to experiential sanctification since we're discussing believers, but I'd like to note three biblical phrases pertaining to experiential sanctification:

1) Abiding in Christ - the mechanism for experiential sanctification (RBT's Divine Dynasphere via 1 John 1:9)

2) Overcoming - the ongoing process of experiential sanctification.

3) White Robes/Washed in the Blood of Christ - the end result of overcoming by continuously Abiding in Christ.

While reading the article you linked on Dominionism, this came to mind:

Quote:
Rev 19:7“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” 8It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.


Rev 19:8 indicates that the Bride made herself ready (overcoming), and as a result is given fine linen to wear. If we assume that the entire Church is automatically the Bride, then we must assume that there are absolutely NO LOSERS in the Church Age since the Bride must be dressed in fine linen. I highly doubt that possibility.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 04:16 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
What are the righteous acts? You're ASSuming it means experiential sanct, but it can be ult sanct, and even merely BELIEVING in Him per 1John2, accounted as overcoming. So see if you can fix that gap...


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 19:52 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2015, 17:56
Posts: 103
hupostasis wrote:

After thinking about John 10:34's "you are gods", it made me realize that this proves Christ's deity, as He was the first (and only) God-Man, allowing us to become "like God" through Him (of course whether one does or doesn't want God's thinking is up to them). Naturally I got curious to the unitarian point of view-- and caused me to go through multiple sources of arguments. They didn't seem to think verse 34 was important. then again trinitarians probably ignore it, too.


Jesus was bamboozling those who wanted to stone him on the basis he was claiming to be God. Jesus threw them off balance, and was able to because of their self-love and ignorance of who he really was. He was able to get them distracted by getting them preoccupied with themselves. Here is how I believe he achieved that feat.

The following part often times get cut out from the context and not analyzed...

Here:
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said,
“You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the
word of God came
(and the Scripture cannot be broken)..


Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82. It was originally written to the leaders in Israel. God was telling those leaders that to those to whom the Word of God came it made them (by God's decree) to be as gods amongst the people. It was by virtue of God's Word that came to them that made them to be as gods. For, if they abided by God's Word? God would honor His Word and would give them the authority in power to be as gods over the people. These leaders in themselves were not gods. But, according to how they would abide by God's Word, God would make them to be as gods. After all.. God's Word is God!

When hearing those words from Jesus lips it made them suddenly realize that they were to be as gods over the people. That quickly turned their thinking inward in their great pride. What Jesus declared got their eyes off of what Jesus had just presented himself to be (God) as they got caught up in their own arrogance and self love. Being overwhelmed by their sense of self importance. It instantly distracted them away from their previous anger. Jesus was ultra-flattering them, yet with truth. Neat trick!

In the mean time...

What remained unspoken.. What they missed and could not understand? Jesus was being before them the full embodiment of all of God's Word. For, He is all the Word of God there is, was, and to be. In essence? That makes Him to be God. The Word is God.

In that way, the truth about Jesus remained in tact as he refused to present His pearls before swine. For, he did not try explain too much about Himself. Instead, He got them instantly preoccupied with themselves by diverting their attention away from what angered them. At that point, only the discerning could be able to know he was God. He left the hypocritical pharisees standing there being self absorbed and preoccupied with their self-love.

Its like Jesus had handed out to children a shiny new toy to become absorbed and amused with. Jesus had them putting down the stones and concentrating upon themselves.

As I said... "neat trick!" Jesus was not simply being clever. He is the Genius of geniuses. Satan must have become insanely infuriated as Jesus brilliantly and elegantly disarmed Satan's explosive weapon. For they were about to stone Jesus.


31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.



.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 03:55 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
brainout wrote:
What are the righteous acts? You're ASSuming it means experiential sanct, but it can be ult sanct, and even merely BELIEVING in Him per 1John2, accounted as overcoming. So see if you can fix that gap...


That's a good question. What do you think about this?
Quote:
Zech3:2 Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” 3Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel. 4He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.” 5Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by.


As the 'brand', was Joshua's removal from the fire a depiction of bema ("saved as through fire")? Or was it a depiction of his salvation?

So is this garment positional sanct or experiential?

Now compare that to the Letter to Laodicea.
Quote:
Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.


This letter was addressed to believers, right? So are these the same category of garments given to Joshua?

I realize that there are different types of clothing (armor of Christ, fine linens, white robes, etc), but they all appear to be some form of covering of righteousness.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 06:58 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, good questions. Since Yeshua (or Yehoshua) means God Saves, the plucked brand in Zech and then in 1Cor3 seem the same, salvation (foundation). So the clothing really does have to mean post-salv, but is it experiential or ult sanct? Esp, to tie to what you've said about the wedding guest and clothing?

We could say that there is some de minimis level of clothing. So is the attire in Zech higher or lower than in Laodicea, since in both cases believers are in view? The Laodiceans were carnal, Joshua is depicted as poster boy for Israel (the Colonel too said that, if I recall), and the clothing for the former is much plainer. But the Laodicean analogy is ROMAN and the plainer the stole the more elegant, so you can't say -- especially given the rest of the contest -- that Christ is only talking de minimis.

So maybe BOTH depict SpirMat? But what if it's just 'fellowship'? We need more verses, aarrgghh to pin the meaning more precisely?


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 17:34 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
@Brainout

Well it would seems that exp sanc compliments ult sanc, but remember that the Laodiceans are instructed to buy gold from Christ, so that looks like a reference to exp sanc pre-bema. In the case of Laodicea, white garments can't refer to resurrection, because all believers receive resurrection, but it seems that not all receive white garments.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 00:33 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
brainout wrote:

So maybe BOTH depict SpirMat? But what if it's just 'fellowship'? We need more verses, aarrgghh to pin the meaning more precisely?


Check out James 5.
Quote:
James 5:1Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. 2Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. 3Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire.


We have the riches of the world (gold, silver, and garments) being rotted away...an ironic reality for the cosmic believers that James is addressing. Sounds very similar to Laodicea.

Quote:
Rev 3:4‘But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5‘He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments


The cosmic believers in Sardis soiled their garments, so it can't refer to the resurrection body, but it still makes sense for the soul and resurrection body to go hand in hand.

I guess without tested doctrine, our soul is naked.

Still looking for more scriptures.

Is Rev 16:15 added to the original text? Seems out of place, some translations omit it.
Quote:
Rev 16:15(“Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his garments, lest he walk about naked and men see his shame.”)

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Last edited by Anonynomenon on 25 Jan 2016, 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 07:22 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, and atop that you have the clothed in Christ metaphors.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 20:29 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
brainout wrote:
Yeah, and atop that you have the clothed in Christ metaphors.


Interestingly enough, being clothed in Christ seems to be a broad metaphor for pos, exp, and ult sanct.

Positional Sanctification:
Quote:
Gal 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


Experiential Sanctification:
Quote:
Rom 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.


Ultimately Sanctification: Putting on immortality (resurrection in Christ). Need a verse for that.

But look at how Job describes Righteous Living (for lack of a better term):
Quote:
Job 29:14 “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
My justice was like a robe and a turban.


Whether or not Job was patting himself on the back is one issue, but his idea of righteousness is like wearing robes.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 03:26 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, those are really interesting points. We now need to add to the other thread hupostasis started, the search term of clothing.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Corporate Hupostasis
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2016, 22:12 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I was just thinking. If Corporate Hupostasis = "Ye are Gods", then that must be true because both Israel and Church were given the Word of God/Mind of Christ.

Both Israel and Church are called the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, but so should the Tribulation saint be too...so what makes Israel and Church so special that they would be betrothed???

It must be the Canonization of Scripture. The NATION of Israel (not Abraham) was given the Torah. The Church was given NT. That must be what sets Israel and Church apart from the Patriarchs and Tribulation saints.

IF this reasoning is accurate, THEN does that mean the Tribulation believers will NOT have any scriptures at all? But the guidance of the 144k alone?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2016, 17:47 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, the covenants are different, two walls Eph2, child versus adult, Galatians, New Covenant promise DELIVERED through Church, Hebrews 8-10. Ask God about those passages.

Frankly I'd bet the Pope was referring to Eph2 when he talked about bridges versus walls yesterday, but maybe I'm assigning too much prescience to him.


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited