Jesus vs Jesus Debate

[rhinomelon]

Thanks for the thoughts Herb. Only time for one quick response here, more tomorrow.

If you cannot be sure what spirit is being discussed in the passage, then you cannot say that the passage explains a lot about spirits. To say it does would be to lump all spirits in the same catagory.

I am lumping all spirits in the same category. The category of Things That Don't Have Bodies. Jesus states that spirits don't have flesh and bones. This would apply to God as well as evil spirits mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

More later. Good thoughts! Take care

[Gordon]

That's what makes heaven heaven! We will see and be with God for eternity.

How will this work? How will we see him, specifically?

In a way, yes. Technically speaking, the Trinity is not made up of parts; it is a whole. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the remaining persons in the Trinity. And all three persons are omnipresent and omniscient, etc. The Son as well as the Father and the Spirit.

First, how are the Father and HG separated/defined within G-d, how would you tell one from the other? Second, how can Christ have a physical body, yet be omnipresent and omniscient at the same time?

[William the Conqueror]

How will this work?  How will we see him, specifically?

In a way, yes. Technically speaking, the Trinity is not made up of parts; it is a whole. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the remaining persons in the Trinity. And all three persons are omnipresent and omniscient, etc. The Son as well as the Father and the Spirit.

First, how are the Father and HG separated/defined within G-d, how would you tell one from the other? Second, how can Christ have a physical body, yet be omnipresent and omniscient at the same time?

Well Rhinomelon,

First I would not say that Jesus is Omnipresent either before or after the Incarnation. As I said in the other thread, The Eternal Son appeared to Jacob and smote his thigh, appeared to Minoah and his wife, and appeared to Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre. ' Abraham saw My day. He saw it and was glad...' and Abraham was glad to know that he would finally bear a son after being promised an heir 24 years earlier. However Sarah laughed because she did not believe it and then denied it to God the Eternal Son. Also Jesus was not omniscient while on earth. ' As to who sits on My left and right that is reserved for my Father who is in Heaven...' Also, ' ...as to that day and hour no one knows not even the Son ...only my Father in Heaven knows....' '...there am I in the midst of them...' That of course refers to the Holy Spirit who is also God and Omniscient. '...I and the Father are one...' and the Father is Omniscient, but Jesus as being the Incarnate person of the Godhead (Trinity) is only IN ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME. '...hereafter you will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds...' Now of course Jesus is eternal -from eternity past through eternity future, and He does have very obviously supernatural powers '...I saw you while you were still under the fig tree....' The only way this can be understand to make any since at all is to believe in the TRINITY. That is it is both and, not either or. If you believe in three personages as the LDS believe then it is either or and just does not compute at least from their viewpoint. So they solve the problem by saying that all three personages have bodies and all three are omniscient. If I am not mistaken they believe all three are omnipresent as well, but that part does not make sense to me. A body could be omniscient but it can not be omnipresent at least from a time space continuum.

That would mean you would have to wave a majic wand and say well since He is God and has a body then He can be omnipresent as well. And if God is all powerful.... However it doesn't correspond to what Jesus said, ' ...for as the lightening flashes from the east to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man....'

[Gordon]

So they solve the problem by saying that all three personages have bodies and all three are omniscient. If I am not mistaken they believe all three are omnipresent as well, but that part does not make sense to me. A body could be omniscient but it can not be omnipresent at least from a time space continuum.

Which LDS members are you talking to that leads you to make such a remark? Nowhere, let me repeat - NOWHERE - in LDS doctrine does it state such a thing.

[Herb]

I am lumping all spirits in the same category. The category of Things That Don't Have Bodies.  Jesus states that spirits don't have flesh and bones. This would apply to God as well as evil spirits mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Spirits do not have a body, yet because Jesus does have a body, you're back at Jesus not being spirit or God.

[rhinomelon]

Spirits do not have a body, yet because Jesus does have a body, you're back at Jesus not being spirit or God.

Jesus was not Spirit at this point. That's the whole miracle of the Incarnation. And simply saying that God is Spirit does not preclude that Spirit from taking on flesh, as the Son did in the incarnation.

God is, in essence, spirit, unembodied. This is why the uniqueness and miracle of the incarnation forms an essential backbone of the entire New Testament. God condescended to take on flesh, to become human in order to provide a way to God for sinful humanity. If God was already a human being, and taking on a body was just part of the normal cycle for the God/human species, the incarnation would not have been such a lightning bolt zapping through the entire early church and beyond.

Hope that makes sense. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Hey William. I'd agree that Christ gave up many divine attributes in the incarnation, including omnipresence and omniscience. However, if these are truly characteristics of God, then Christ has these now. As he prayed to the Father in John, he was glorified to the glory he had with the Father before time began.

And if statements Jesus applied to himself (like "there I am in their midst") are to be taken as applying to the other persons of the Trinity, isn't that rather modalistic?

Just curious. Take care, everyone

[William the Conqueror]

Hey William. I'd agree that Christ gave up many divine attributes in the incarnation, including omnipresence and omniscience. However, if these are truly characteristics of God, then Christ has these now. As he prayed to the Father in John, he was glorified to the glory he had with the Father before time began.

And if statements Jesus applied to himself (like "there I am in their midst") are to be taken as applying to the other persons of the Trinity, isn't that rather modalistic?

Just curious. Take care, everyone

However, if these are truly characteristics of God, then Christ has these now. As he prayed to the Father in John, he was glorified to the glory he had with the Father before time began.

John 17 - the high priestly prayer - '...with the glory which I had with Thee before the world began...' Yes possibly Christ does have omniscience now since His acsension 10 days before Pentecost.

And if statements Jesus applied to himself (like "there I am in their midst") are to be taken as applying to the other persons of the Trinity, isn't that rather modalistic?

I didn't realize I would be considered Modalistic. Jesus did say 'I and the Father are one...' and He also prayed to the Father not only in John 17 but before He raised Lazarus and many other instances. Jesus and the Holy Spirit would be one as well from a Trinitarian standpoint, so I don't think there is a problem saying the passage ' there I am in their midst..' would contradict ' ...I will send you the Comforter...' at least from a Trinitarian view. ' I go to the Father...' I do believe Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father now and He won't leave that spot, place, or post until the Rapture.

From a polytheistic viewpoint these passages have many problems as Jesus can't be in their midst and at the right hand of God at the same time. Therefore the Holy Spirit and Jesus would have to be two Gods. In that case the passage would need to read, '...there the Comforter is in the midst of them...' which is still true from the Trinitarian standpoint or it could mean another God, but as it says 'I' it forces a Trinitarian view.

Since the acsension Jesus will always have the resurrected body with the nailed scars in His hands. Before the incarnation I'm not certain if the Eternal Son of God always had a body or if He took bodily form when He appeared to the Old Testament individuals I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread.

If I am not mistaken the Modalistic view would say that Jesus is all three persons of the Godhead at different times. The Father became the Son at the Incarnation and the Son became the Holy Spirit after the ascension. If this is an accurate portrayal of that belief system, then it certainly contradicts scripture as Jesus prayed to the Father on many occasions. It also contradicts what He said about His second coming in reference to the Holy Spirit.

[Herb]

Jesus was not Spirit at this point. That's the whole miracle of the Incarnation. And simply saying that God is Spirit does not preclude that Spirit from taking on flesh, as the Son did in the incarnation.

God is, in essence, spirit, unembodied. This is why the uniqueness and miracle of the incarnation forms an essential backbone of the entire New Testament. God condescended to take on flesh, to become human in order to provide a way to God for sinful humanity. If God was already a human being, and taking on a body was just part of the normal cycle for the God/human species, the incarnation would not have been such a lightning bolt zapping through the entire early church and beyond.

The heart of the argument is that God is an unembodied spirit. This was not supported by the scriptures you provided. To make great leaps and assupmtions about spirits off of the scriptures examined is dubious.

If as you said God was already human, then He wouldn't have been able to assume a new form, nor would He had been able to be born, live and die in Judea. However, He would have been able to have a Son that would have been able to live, die, and over come death. The "uniqueness" of the event was preserved in the fact that never before in human history, and never afterwards, has such a sacrifice been made for man.

[rhinomelon]

I didn't realize I would be considered Modalistic. Jesus did say 'I and the Father are one...' and He also prayed to the Father not only in John 17 but before He raised Lazarus and many other instances. Jesus and the Holy Spirit would be one as well from a Trinitarian standpoint, so I don't think there is a problem saying the passage ' there I am in their midst..' would contradict ' ...I will send you the Comforter...' at least from a Trinitarian view.

It wouldn't really be a contradiction between those two passages, I agree. But the different persons in the Trinity have different roles. As the Orthodox say it, they have different parts in the dance. So what one person does shouldn't be confused with what another person does.

As far as Jesus staying at the right hand of the Father eternally, I don't think that is necessarily the case. The expression "standing on the right hand" was a powerful metaphor in Judaism, denoting power and authority. Which is why Steven was stoned when he said that; he was equating Jesus with God and His power and authority.

I agree with your thinking on the Trinity.

Since the acsension Jesus will always have the resurrected body with the nailed scars in His hands. Before the incarnation I'm not certain if the Eternal Son of God always had a body or if He took bodily form when He appeared to the Old Testament individuals I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread.

Agreed on the first statement. But Jesus is not a simple human being, limited by that body. Jesus is God, with all that entails. And many believe that it was the Son who interacted with Old Testament figures. These are called "theophanies". They are usually seen in terms of God taking bodily form, but not actually being human, as in the incarnation. I haven't studied a great deal on these instances, so I couldn't give you much more than that, sorry.

Anyway, more later. Take care, everyone

[Massive Mormon MegaMan 7000]

WOW! This thread is eternal.

Herb and Gordon -- I love your logic and simpleness, I am learning well from you.

The Trinity --> "Behold, this is my Beloved Son, I mean myself, whom I am well pleased."

Is my understanding of the Trinity correct? Or is that still too simple an explanation?

[rhinomelon]

WOW! This thread is eternal.

Herb and Gordon -- I love your logic and simpleness, I am learning well from you.

The Trinity --> "Behold, this is my Beloved Son, I mean myself, whom I am well pleased."

Is my understanding of the Trinity correct? Or is that still too simple an explanation?

Wow, what a name! Welcome, Massive!

This thread is eternal. Trinity threads come and go all the time on the boards here. Like the changing of the seasons....

As far as your understanding of the Trinity, your summary would be considered modalism, which is not the Trinity. The Father and the Son are not the same person, but they are the same being.

I'll try to explain more clearly later. Until then, take care, and welcome to the thread!

[Herb]

But Jesus is not a simple human being, limited by that body. Jesus is God, with all that entails.

While He was mortal, what is it that He didn't do that would be considered "limited"?

[rhinomelon]

While He was mortal, what is it that He didn't do that would be considered "limited"?

Could you expand that question a little bit? It's probably just me, but I'm having some trouble figuring out what you're looking for. Thanks

[Herb]

While He was mortal, what is it that He didn't do that would be considered "limited"?

Could you expand that question a little bit? It's probably just me, but I'm having some trouble figuring out what you're looking for. Thanks

You say Jesus was limited because of His body. Limited how? Was there something He as a mortal didn't do that makes you say He was limited?

[rhinomelon]

You say Jesus was limited because of His body. Limited how? Was there something He as a mortal didn't do that makes you say He was limited?

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. This will just be an off-the-cuff answer, but as far as limitations go, Jesus was obviously not omniscient, as there were certain things he did not know. One of the most obvious would be the time of his return, but also who it was that touched him and was healed, and I seem to remember a couple other instances. Another limitation would be he was only in one place at one time.

There are also the aspects of humanity that are limiting simply because of our existence that are not part of God's existence. For instance, Jesus got thirsty, hungry, tired, etc. I think a strong case would be made that Jesus as a human lacked the intimacy with the Father and Spirit that he had before the incarnation. Jesus looked forward to going home, in a way!

I think there are other examples, but these should do for now. Take care

[Herb]

This will just be an off-the-cuff answer, but as far as limitations go, Jesus was obviously not omniscient, as there were certain things he did not know. One of the most obvious would be the time of his return, but also who it was that touched him and was healed, and I seem to remember a couple other instances

Was this because of Him having a body? Is there sufficient evidence that Jesus, prior to being incarnated, had the knowledge of the exact time of His return? He predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, omniscience or revelation? How about the prediction of His own demise?

Mark 5: 30-32 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?

And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.

Was He asking "Who" because He didn't know, or was He asking "Who" so He could bring to light what was done? There had to be many people who touched His garments then and throughout His ministry that were not healed because of the lack of faith. Yet, in this instance there was a person of great faith who was healed. There are other places in the Gospels where Jesus points out the great faith of a person, isn't this one of them?

For instance, Jesus got thirsty, hungry, tired, etc. I think a strong case would be made that Jesus as a human lacked the intimacy with the Father and Spirit that he had before the incarnation

And He fasted 40 days and nights in the desert. No mere mortal could do that. He ate and drank and yes, He may have been hungered and thirsted, but it doesn't appear to have been a limitation.

What is it that separates man from God? If it is just sin, then there isn't a reason for Christ to have been separated from God or the Holy Ghost.

[rhinomelon]

Bumping this for tomorrow. Good thoughts, Herb!