To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

Greg,

Am I frustrating you by asking you questions? I'm only attempting to follow Paul's inspired counsel. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) I do appreciate your answers because they help me to work through a Unitarian view of the Bible's message.

I actually fully answered your first half.

All you've said is 'ontology', but that has implications. Please explain!

• 1. How does a previous (or post) state of existence have any affect on a current one?
  
  2. Is Jesus currently, right now, a man or a divine person?

These are natural and obvious follow-ups to the answer you gave.

1. Given that you believe anyone can choose to not sin, how do you know that no one else throughout history has been sinless like Jesus? Can there be another exception to Romans 3:10?

I don't know - and don't care. I do know I sinned - and that is all that matters to me.

All that would mean is that you are in need of a savior, but not necessarily everyone else. Do you not see how that would undermine the gospel?

2. Do you believe that the virgin birth is completely unrelated to Jesus' sinless life? In other words, do you believe Jesus would have lived a flawless life regardless of whether or not he had a human (biological) father?

I have no idea - and find no relevance in the question

Again, interesting response. You find absolutely no relevance, not even curiosity, in the fact that the only person that was sinless was also the only one born of a virgin birth? Do you just view that as a strange coincidence?

[Greg Logan]

TJ

Paul's inspired counsel was to "avoid doubtful disputations"... I am pretty sure we have gone FAR past these. Why? Because they are not leading to anything. They do not lead to agape out of a pure heart. Right? The truth is simple - ITim2:5. Period.

Jesus was, is and ALWAYS will be a man. He is a man. He is now in a glorified body. This is exactly what the scripture teaches. People just don't get what a man is - MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD!

1. How does a previous (or post) state of existence have any affect on a current one?

This is nonsensical - there is no such thing.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

This discussion is leading us to something: my own understanding of what you believe is truth. You're giving me precious little substance to work with, but I'm grateful for what you do give.

Jesus was, is and ALWAYS will be a man. He is a man. He is now in a glorified body.

Is Jesus in any way divine now?

[Greg Logan]

Is Jesus in any way divine now?

No.

You're giving me precious little substance to work with, but I'm grateful for what you do give.

I only gave you Jesus and God - what more do you want...

There is one God - the Father - and one mediator - the man Christ Jesus.

One sentence... what more do you need????

[TJ]

Thanks for your follow up; we're getting somewhere.

Is Jesus in any way divine now?

No.

So he's not like the Christians that are promised to "become partakers of the divine nature"? (2 Peter 1:4) Will those Christians still be human?

If Jesus can change bodies, wouldn't that be a change in ontology?

[Greg Logan]

So he's not like the Christians that are promised to "become partakers of the divine nature"? (2 Peter 1:4) Will those Christians still be human?

Yes - of course... You are reading too much into "a divine nature". We are always human. Simply read the wrap up in Rev21... Kings will be there...

The issue is - in what sense are we partakers of the divine nature - Jesus will do so in the same sense.

If Jesus can change bodies, wouldn't that be a change in ontology?

No - it is an "extension". We are still human beings.

Now then - time for a question from me -

How will this line of questioning accomplish the following -
τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου,

[TJ]

Hello Greg,

You are reading too much into "a divine nature". We are always human.

So even though they share in having a divine nature, they are in no way divine?

If Jesus can change bodies, wouldn't that be a change in ontology?

No - it is an "extension". We are still human beings.

It would really seem to be a ontological change though, wouldn't it? Corruption to incorruption, mortality to immortality, physical to spiritual. Isn't that a different state of being?

Now then - time for a question from me -

How will this line of questioning accomplish the following -
τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου,

Well, you asked my opinion; let's look at the context:

1 Timothy 1:3-7

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship[a] from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Paul was directing Timothy to shut down false teachers who didn't understand the full implications of what they taught, but still made confident assertions that it was nonetheless correct. I don't have the authority that Timothy had, but I'm trying to explore the full implications of your 'different doctrine' to see if this is the case or not, hopefully in a loving manner.

Do you 'understand what you are saying' when you say that any of us can choose not to sin and thus be in no need of a savior?

[Greg Logan]

So even though they share in having a divine nature, they are in no way divine?

Please re-read what I wrote - the issue is "the sense". You - as all Arians I have ever met - read very simplistically and literally.

I am curious what the level of your education is?

It would really seem to be a ontological change though, wouldn't it? Corruption to incorruption, mortality to immortality, physical to spiritual. Isn't that a different state of being

If you want to read it in that sense - sure. I am not reading it in that sense. God is still God. Divine beings are still divine beings. Man is still man.

TJ - You seem to be missing the point - the point is - how will this line of questioning accomplish the real call of God in our lives which is NOT the level of sophistry that you are working at BUT it is -
τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου

My question remains.

Do you 'understand what you are saying' when you say that any of us can choose not to sin and thus be in no need of a savior?

I have never worried about - because no one has yet and based on my life experience and walking with God - I doubt anyone will - it is amazing that Jesus made it - which is why my admiration for Him is so great...

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

You - as all Arians I have ever met - read very simplistically and literally.

Perception. Some might say the same could be said for your insistence on the words 'Jesus is a MAN.'

Isn't that a different state of being

If you want to read it in that sense - sure. I am not reading it in that sense. God is still God. Divine beings are still divine beings. Man is still man.

So that's a Yes and No? It seems that you hold some inflexible metaphysical conclusions. God cannot make a divine being a man? God cannot make a man a divine being? Is that a scriptural conclusion or a human one?

My question remains.

The object of searching out and shutting down the false teachers was out of love; that's what that verse is saying. Do you have a complaint against how I've treated you throughout the discussion?

Do you 'understand what you are saying' when you say that any of us can choose not to sin and thus be in no need of a savior?

I have never worried about - because no one has yet and based on my life experience and walking with God - I doubt anyone will

So wait, before when I asked how it is that you know that no one had ever lived a sinless life like Jesus, you indicated that you didn't know that. But now you're saying that you do know that. This all has very real implications on the gospel.

• -If there are others who lived sinless lives: Why did they die? Is Jesus the only name given by which God saves or not?
  
  -If there is no one else who has lived a sinless life, purely by choice: Is it one big universal coincidence that Jesus is the only person that chose righteousness?

[Greg Logan]

Perception. Some might say the same could be said for your insistence on the words 'Jesus is a MAN.'

Fair enuf - but a man is a man - "coming down from above" and "created through him" are vastly less evident and simple concepts... Yet Arians approach these as simplistically and earthly as possible. That really is a big cruz to it all.

So that's a Yes and No? It seems that you hold some inflexible metaphysical conclusions. God cannot make a divine being a man? God cannot make a man a divine being? Is that a scriptural conclusion or a human one?

This is simply entirely foreign to scripture. I have no interest in such an oddity.

The object of searching out and shutting down the false teachers was out of love; that's what that verse is saying.

With respect, you are completely missing the massively huge point of the text....

You have treated me just fine. Very normal and very human.

As to the remainder of your questions - again, with respect, this is just mental masturbation - and does not fulfill the goal of our charge... If you did not have a desperate axe to grind you would not be spending your precious life on this kind of doubtful disputation but on feeding widows and orphans.

Agape

Greg