Replies

Did God want, or perhaps need an help meet?

You're not serious.
Are you?

Okay, if you hadn't already, go look up the definition of "aseity" and try to compose for me a post on how violation of the Aseity principle would overthrow the entire doctrine of Deity.

Maybe, you'll manage to correct your own mistake. If not, I'll offer my suggestions. But, you can have a go at it first; just attempt the exercise I suggest.

Best, OP

Sorry I took so long. Actually I was mostly serious. I could be seriously wrong, but I am not ready to give up yet. After reading several articles on Aseity, I know why my ideas are not readily received. I took the following statement from one of the articles because it doesn’t sit well with me.

“But it is obvious that the mutability implied in this belongs to creatures, and not to the Creator; and it is a strange confusion of thought that has led some modern Theists -- even professing Christians -- to maintain that such attributes can be laid aside by God, and that the Logos in becoming incarnate actually did lay them aside, or at least ceased from their active exercise. But as creation itself did not affect the immutability of God, so neither did the incarnation of a Divine Person; whatever change was involved in either case took place solely in the created nature.”

Before I challenge this statement, let me point out that the last sentence actually gives me room for my original statement. Mind you, I do not challenge lightly. This forum has made me painfully aware of my ignorance.

1 Cor. 15:46 “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”

First birth = natural birth Second birth = spiritual birth

First death = natural death Second death = spiritual death

First resurrection = natural resurrection Second resurrection = spiritual resurrection?

The order, natural then spiritual is established by I Cor. 15:46, and supported by many examples in scriptures: the first man, first manna, first bread, first Creation, firstborn son of at least four of the men in the genealogy of Christ in Genesis, the three examples above and more. The order of the trinity, birth, death, and resurrection, is established in nature and therefore implied in the spirit, because “the invisible things of him … being understood by the things that are made.” There are no fewer than seven trinities with the same general structure in the first chapter of Genesis. Add to that the obvious correspondence to “The Trinity,” and more, and you begin to see a pattern, which runs through all Scripture and nature.

One nice thing about looking at the details of Scriptures is that there are so many of them. Individually they do not hold much weight but if you put enough threads together, you will come up with a threefold cord, which is not quickly broken.

I suspect that you disagree at this point because of one of your previous post.

". How do I know this? Because neither Adam not Eve experienced Spiritual Death when they touched the Fruit of Trial -- but only when they ate it. “

(From post 773 on another thread.) Here you have Adam dying the second death first, and though it is appointed unto men once to die, you have him dying twice. (Adam died the first death more than 800 years later.) At this point, I need to stop and get your thoughts so I can decide which direction to go from here. Here is something for you to think about. If you accept these premises, the second resurrection, which is not mentioned in scripture, takes an interesting turn. The second resurrection, if there is one, would have to come after the second death.

Respectfully submitted.