RECOVERING THE TRUTH & A COMING TO A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS

Bet Emet Ministries ^ | Unknown | Craig Lyons

[ksen]

You are correct, however, in understanding that if we do unite our own personal nature to that of Jesus that we do become united with the divinity. Jesus did come to allow us all to raise our human nature up so that we may participate in the divine life. So, yes, what you say is true, but not automatically by being human. It is by being human and attached to Christ.

Here's what Pope Peter I wrote in his encyclical II Peter.

II Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

[Quester]

What? Just when I said you made an excellent point? :-)

I'm still speechless over this!

[OLD REGGIE]

Let's pretend we've had this conversation before and cut to the chase, eh?

I pretty much conceded this in my #1801. I intended to ask if the condemnation of Honorius for heresy was an error, either on the part of Honorius or the council.

I fully expected you to dance around the question of whether Honorius "taught" error, whether it was a valid council, or whether it was something else. IOW the deniability built into your system.

How's the weather up there? Is the sweet corn in yet? How about that sausage beating?

It has been raining and cold since last night. It's ok though, we needed rain.

The sweet corn is just beginning to come in. Most of it is still coming from New Jersey. It's good though.

The sausage beating is a non story. More interesting than a baseball game but a non story nevertheless.

[malakhi]

Sorry 1,792 was for you, not ET

No problem.

I am an A mil so I take that in light of Rev 20 -22

I scanned through that. If I understand correctly, you are saying that this happens at the end of days?

[OLD REGGIE]

What if I said it is 100 percent blue and 100 percent Japanese?

A blue Japanese!

Now, what if you said 100% woman and 100% man?

[SoothingDave]

So the divine nature was joined to a damaged human nature? This would imply that Jesus was born with original sin.

Wait a minute. You are missing the idea of what OS is -- a lack of intimacy with the divine. Having your nature joined to the divine is about as intimate as you can get. So your objection is nonsensical. When Jesus joined the human nature to the divine it became "undamaged."

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Sure looks like God is calling for a human sacrifice. That's probably what tripped up Abraham and me.

Now, if I could do that ... see the end from the beginning thing ... like God can, I would probably agree with you.

It would have tripped me up too. The thing is, we are not God. God didn't call for, nor intend, a human sacrifice.

The fact that we or Abraham misunderstood is our problem.

[SoothingDave]

Honorious didn't teach error, but he may have abided by it, but not by his own fault. It was more, I believe, a question of Greek/Latin dificulties.

The sweet corn is just beginning to come in. Most of it is still coming from New Jersey. It's good though.

Something good from New Jersey? Who'da thunk it.

They bring up Southern corn here, starting ridiculously early in the year. I would feed it to animals, but not myself.

I have a personal rule that I only buy sweet corn from the actual people who grow it.

SD

[malakhi]

I really was using this passage to refute the notion, posted by others, that Jesus was not a proper sacrifice, due to the various regulations on animal sacrifice.

Okay, let's carry this forward and use this passage as an instruction for how God theoretically might call for such a sacrifice.

He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:2)

Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (Genesis 22:10)

Now, presumably Abraham is going about this the right way -- God doesn't stop him, after all, because he is messing up the procedure, but rather because He doesn't really want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

So what do we see here? If God were to command human sacrifice, the model would seem to be a burnt offering on an altar, with the victim slain with a knife (death presumably being from loss of blood).

This doesn't match the death of Jesus.

[Quester]

Now, what if you said 100% woman and 100% man?

Classic set theory.

Set A can be 100% quality A and 100% quality B, so long as quality A and quality B are not mutually exclusive.

[malakhi]

Actually you make a very good point.

See my #1829.

[SoothingDave]

Now, what if you said 100% woman and 100% man?

A hermaphrodite? ;-)

Your question is biased to your position. The "normal" response is that one is either woman or man, not both.

This does not extend to Jesus, cause nowhere is it said that a person can not be both human and divine.

Malakhi will now post the "God is not a man" verse, but that is not meant to be taken that literally.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If God were to command human sacrifice, the model would seem to be a burnt offering on an altar, with the victim slain with a knife (death presumably being from loss of blood). This doesn't match the death of Jesus.

This is predicated on two points, one minor, one major.

#1, You are assuming that God has only one mode of "human sacrifice." This is not shown. He very well could have somethign else in mind for Jesus than He did for Isaac.

(#1.5, Isaac was not sacrificed, so we can't really say at all that this is God's "method" of human sacrifice, since there was no sacrifice.)

#1, Were Jesus a mere "human sacrifice" you might have a point. But the fact is that it is an infinite sacrifice, not a finite one. So God can use whatever method He chooses. It's apples and oranges.

SD

[ksen]

That, in terms of eternity, our time on this earth is really no big deal?

Since our Eternity is determined here than I think the time we spend on this earth is a very big deal.

[OLD REGGIE]

Honorious didn't teach error, but he may have abided by it, but not by his own fault. It was more, I believe, a question of Greek/Latin dificulties.

Pretty much what I said you'd say.

The Catholic Catechism says:

2089. "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. 'HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.'

Looks like error to me. From a Pope by golly.

[Quester]

Okay, let's carry this forward and use this passage as an instruction for how God theoretically might call for such a sacrifice.

He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:2)

Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (Genesis 22:10)

Now, presumably Abraham is going about this the right way --God doesn't stop him, after all, because he is messing up the procedure, but rather because He doesn't really want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

So what do we see here? If God were to command human sacrifice, the model would seem to be a burnt offering on an altar, with the victim slain with a knife (death presumably being from loss of blood).

This doesn't match the death of Jesus.

This is an event ... not part of an instruction manual.

I believe that you may be a bit too preoccupied with the details.

Jesus' death looked nothing like a classic sacrifice scenario.

It can only be considered such in that it was purposed and allowed by God.

Interestingly, it is testified, by John, that the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, saw/prophesied/encouraged Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the Jewish nation, as well.

John 11:45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

However, to everyone not in the know (one way or another), it looked like a typical crucifixion.

Anyway, I agreed with Dave (despite Steve's endorsement) that my other argument was better. ;o)

[OLD REGGIE]

Since our Eternity is determined here than I think the time we spend on this earth is a very big deal.

Big deal to you because you can't imagine eternity.

For one example, the profoundly Spina Bifada baby has what kind of eternity in store?

[malakhi]

God ceased the sacrifices after He made the ultimate gesture to demonstrate that it is internal rather than external conversion he wants.

They continued for another 30-40 years after Jesus's death.

[malakhi]

Now, what if you said 100% woman and 100% man?

Zzzzzzzzzzing!!! :o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Zzzzzzzzzzing!!! :o)

Rupaul.