Concupiscence

[praise_yeshua]

No, why do you keep asking inane questions? I’m not going to argue for the sake of argument.

Being fully God means that he is in control of his attributes. The person of the Son limited himself to the capacities of human beings. As a man, he depended solely on God, just as all men must, not on his own power or authority. He had his attributes, but did not avail himself of them. He always lived a “not my will but yours be done” life. He did or said nothing of his own accord.


Doug

Not inane at all. The Unity of the Holy Trinity requires dependency. Severe a single aspect of dependency in the Unity of the Persons of the "Godhead" and it is all nonsense.

What you're referencing is what a Unitarian would argue. Not what a Trinitarian would argue.

If you don't believe me, ask some of your trained Trinitarian friends. You don't have to listen to me. Do as you please.

The Divine Person of Jesus Christ has always been in agreement with the Father. Did John Wesley teach you this? Or maybe Charles saying the same thing?

In the context of the Hypostatic Union. There is ONLY a SINGULAR will of the Holy Trinity.

What Christ said was for the benefit of others. He didn't have to open His mouth to please Himself. They denied his Unity with the Father. Which is the WILL of the Son. They share in the common will of each Person.

 

[civic]

I just want to say we all have good and evil in our hearts today.

Yes, @TibiasDad, Adam could have chose different but his wife was hot, and his decision to blame God for giving him such a hot wife it was Gods fault.

Silly Adam.

is that a pun ?

his wife was hot ?

 

[TibiasDad]

Not inane at all. The Unity of the Holy Trinity requires dependency. Severe a single aspect of dependency in the Unity of the Persons of the "Godhead" and it is all nonsense.

What have I severed? Jesus was fully God in human flesh. But he did not avail himself of the attributes of his deity in his human form. It is one thing to have and another to use; I may have electricity, but I don’t have to turn the lights on! There is no division in the Godhead!


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

What have I severed? Jesus was fully God in human flesh. But he did not avail himself of the attributes of his deity in his human form. It is one thing to have and another to use; I may have electricity, but I don’t have to turn the lights on! There is no division in the Godhead!


Doug

The will of Jesus Christ originating in the Father.

 

[GallagherM]

I love looking at a hot woman. Even if it is a married person with 3 children.

I wont deny it. I can't touch it, but boy wonder. Gotta love them as a human, and not an object.

And I pretty much just respect when it comes down to a person who is married.

I note it mentally not flirt with them. Cause its just respect.

Where sometimes other guys wouldnt give a dang. To each they own as they say.

 

[TibiasDad]

The will of Jesus Christ originating in the Father.

And what have I said that denies this? My whole argument has been that the father gave Jesus the words he said. Jesus was doing his Father’s work and bidding.

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

And what have I said that denies this? My whole argument has been that the father gave Jesus the words he said. Jesus was doing his Father’s work and bidding.

Doug

I don't understand how you believe you're saying the same "thing" I'm saying. You're not. Not even close.

The words of Christ did not originate in the Father and were passed down to the Son. They (Holy Trinity) always say the same things. Those words Innately come from the very Essence they all have. Not three divided. Three United. A singular Essence. Three Persons.

I know it is frustrating to deal with the Intricate Nature of the Holy Trinity but what Christ said was a statement of agreement. The way you're referencing it requires those words originate with the Father and be passed down to the Son.

Which is utter preposterous to believe. Those words are Divine and Innately a quality of the Divine "Personage" of Christ. The Hypostatic Union did not change the nature or Essence of the Son nor diminish the power available to the Son at any moment of His Incarnation.

I showed you that Christ was "omnipresent" (not a word I would use myself) when you claim he wasn't. A quality of His existence openly USED and on full display in His bodily form as He "Tabernacled" among us.

 

[TibiasDad]

I showed you that Christ was "omnipresent" (not a word I would use myself)

And yet you did! Human beings cannot be “omnipresent”. That Jesus “saw” doesn’t mean that he was there. It means it was revealed to him to see.


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

And yet you did! Human beings cannot be “omnipresent”. That Jesus “saw” doesn’t mean that he was there. It means it was revealed to him to see.


Doug

@civic

So you really believe this. That the man (that you insist upon separating in the Person of Jesus Christ) had to get this information from the Father?

Civic, I would like for you to confirm you believe this too. You're the closest thing here that matches a real Trinitarian in understanding.

So Jesus spoke to Himself or the Father spoke to Him to REVEAL information to Christ?

BTW. Omnipresence isn't about literally "being there"...... Geesh. If you believe that nonsense (like a really good meticulous determinist must) then I have MANY questions for you. I believe you're unlearned in this and you're just making your answers up as you go. That is what I believe. I've never seen anything mature about your understanding in any of this. Just repeating your Wesleyan roots. John and Charles neither weren't savants in theology.

You can't separate the Hypostatic Union. The human "side" (there are no sides) as you believe it, was mature. Capable of understanding and consuming vast amounts of information. In fact, if you're filled with the Spirit, then what do you get? Is the Spirit part of you or are you just the Spirit's slave. Just a host for a parasite?

Christ wasn't limited in knowledge in the Hypostatic Union.

Civic, I've told you there is no meaningful difference in Calvinists and Arminianism in most of the evil that exist in these teachings. If you keep "narrowing down" their beliefs..... it always comes back to the same fundamental issues with their mistakes.

This meticulous determinism that exists among both of them is evil "incarnate".

@TibiasDad

Please confirm specifically that you believe Omnipresence requires literally "being there".

 

[civic]

@civic

So you really believe this. That the man (that you insist upon separating in the Person of Jesus Christ) had to get this information from the Father?

Civic, I would like for you to confirm you believe this too. You're the closest thing here that matches a real Trinitarian in understanding.

So Jesus spoke to Himself or the Father spoke to Him to REVEAL information to Christ?

BTW. Omnipresence isn't about literally "being there"...... Geesh. If you believe that nonsense (like a really good meticulous determinist must) then I have MANY questions for you. I believe you're unlearned in this and you're just making your answers up as you go. That is what I believe. I've never seen anything mature about your understanding in any of this. Just repeating your Wesleyan roots. John and Charles neither weren't savants in theology.

You can't separate the Hypostatic Union. The human "side" (there are no sides) as you believe it, was mature. Capable of understanding and consuming vast amounts of information. In fact, if you're filled with the Spirit, then what do you get? Is the Spirit part of you or are you just the Spirit's slave. Just a host for a parasite?

Christ wasn't limited in knowledge in the Hypostatic Union.

Civic, I've told you there is no meaningful difference in Calvinists and Arminianism in most of the evil that exist in these teachings. If you keep "narrowing down" their beliefs..... it always comes back to the same fundamental issues with their mistakes.

This meticulous determinism that exists among both of them is evil "incarnate".

@TibiasDad

Please confirm specifically that you believe Omnipresence requires literally "being there".

No I believe Jesus was fully God and had all the Omni's at all times. I'm not saying He used them all of the time or did not limited their use. This coincides with Philippians 2. He did not use them to His advantage.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No I believe Jesus was fully God and had all the Omni's at all times. I'm not saying He used them all of the time or did not limited their use. This coincides with Philippians 2. He did not use them to His advantage.

I believe you recognize that most of those trying to participate in these types of discussions don't really understand what they're saying at all. I know you do.

Omnipresence comes from Latin. The concept is tainted via the Latin language and "legal" constructs that come out of the old Roman empire. (not that Latin is bad. However, it is influenced by this world system we face upon this earth). Some of the issues you're seeing in PSA (rightfully so) come out of Latin's influence upon the English language. "Man's law" mixed with God's "law".

Can you explain to me what he is trying to say?

In respect to Christ's Incarnation....Not "saying" something is different than not "knowing something". The choice to say or not say something didn't come from some "magic" human limitation upon the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.

Is he recognizing this or not?

 

[civic]

I believe you recognize that most of those trying to participate in these types of discussions don't really understand what they're saying at all. I know you do.

Omnipresence comes from Latin. The concept is tainted via the Latin language and "legal" constructs that come out of the old Roman empire. (not that Latin is bad. However, it is influenced by this world system we face upon this earth). Some of the issues you're seeing in PSA (rightfully so) come out of Latin's influence upon the English language. "Man's law" mixed with God's "law".

Can you explain to me what he is trying to say?

In respect to Christ's Incarnation....Not "saying" something is different than not "knowing something". The choice to say or not say something didn't come from some "magic" human limitation upon the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.

Is he recognizing this or not?

I know Doug is very capable of explaining and defending his beliefs. I would rather let @TibiasDad explain what he means.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I know Doug is very capable of explaining and defending his beliefs. I would rather let @TibiasDad explain what he means.

I disagree. We don't have to agree. I see immaturity in most everything he writes. He doesn't know what he is saying. He is just repeating others. If there was anyone worse than John Calvin it was Jacobus Arminius. I know that offends many people but I'm in this life to promote men.

Once you make something part of you, you know the difference. You can recognize the difference. Just repeating the words of others or the perspective of others doesn't go anywhere if it isn't your own. It is too much to remember and has no organization of thought. It is disconnected in your heart and comes out disconnected in the words we write/speak.

He doesn't know anything about Trinitarianism nor the Unity of the God. He is separating and dividing the union of God in humanity. He is arguing like a Unitarian. You've had enough of those arguments yourself to know the difference.

 

[TibiasDad]

@civic

So you really believe this. That the man (that you insist upon separating in the Person of Jesus Christ) had to get this information from the Father?

Civic, I would like for you to confirm you believe this too. You're the closest thing here that matches a real Trinitarian in understanding.

So Jesus spoke to Himself or the Father spoke to Him to REVEAL information to Christ?

BTW. Omnipresence isn't about literally "being there"...... Geesh. If you believe that nonsense (like a really good meticulous determinist must) then I have MANY questions for you. I believe you're unlearned in this and you're just making your answers up as you go. That is what I believe. I've never seen anything mature about your understanding in any of this. Just repeating your Wesleyan roots. John and Charles neither weren't savants in theology.

You can't separate the Hypostatic Union. The human "side" (there are no sides) as you believe it, was mature. Capable of understanding and consuming vast amounts of information. In fact, if you're filled with the Spirit, then what do you get? Is the Spirit part of you or are you just the Spirit's slave. Just a host for a parasite?

Christ wasn't limited in knowledge in the Hypostatic Union.

Civic, I've told you there is no meaningful difference in Calvinists and Arminianism in most of the evil that exist in these teachings. If you keep "narrowing down" their beliefs..... it always comes back to the same fundamental issues with their mistakes.

This meticulous determinism that exists among both of them is evil "incarnate".

@TibiasDad

Please confirm specifically that you believe Omnipresence requires literally "being there".

Is God literally where you are and where I am at the same instance of time?

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Is God literally where you are and where I am at the same instance of time?

Doug

See I was right @civic

Doug,

What you believe about this in meticulous determinism is your issue here. It corrupts the Incarnation/Hypostatic Union. It corrupts your view of Predestination. It corrupts the very purpose of God in humanity.

It is so disconnected from reality that it only lives as imagination in your heart. It never meets realty.

I can destroy your thoughts in one response......Not that you're recognize it.

In the Union of God in Humanity. Was Jesus Christ both in time and out of time at the same "time"?

 

[TibiasDad]

In the Union of God in Humanity. Was Jesus Christ both in time and out of time at the same "time"?

Jesus the man did not avail himself of his capacities as the Word! “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” Was Jesus Christ both the source of life and subject to death at the same time?


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus the man did not avail himself of his capacities as the Word! “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” Was Jesus Christ both the source of life and subject to death at the same time?


Doug

Just keeps getting worse and worse. I'll answer your last question when you answer what I asked. Your question is easy to answer for me. I was debating this topic in the 90s. This isn't new to me.

You are the one that brought in the context of "time". I dealt with it. You deal with it.

Before you do, let me "head you off".....

It is utter rubbish what you believe about time. It breaks the Union of Christ in the Holy Trinity. You might as well admit that you're a functioning Unitarian whether you recognize it or not.

 

[Studyman]

@civic

So you really believe this. That the man (that you insist upon separating in the Person of Jesus Christ) had to get this information from the Father?

According to what is actually written in scriptures, the Jesus of the Bible received "ALL His Knowledge", everything HE said and knew, was information revealed to Him from His Father. He "Chose" to listen to His Father and not all the "other voices" that existed in the garden God placed him in. All His Word's that HE spoke, were given to Him by His Father "because" HE chose to "Yield Himself" to God. And there were things the Father knew that were not revealed to Jesus before His Ascension, according to His own Words. Why would anyone NOT believe Jesus got His information from His Father?



Matt. 11: 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mark 13: 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Luke 2: 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

John 5: 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and "sheweth him" all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

John 8: 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 10: 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 12: 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, "he gave me a commandment", what I should say, and "what I should speak". 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Truly Jesus is the perfect example of a man "Learned of the Father".

 

[TibiasDad]

. I was debating this topic in the 90s. This isn't new to me.

So you’ve been wrong for 30+years?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

What you believe about this in meticulous determinism is your issue here.

And what do I believe about meticulous determinism?

Doug