To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

As to the remainder of your questions - again, with respect...

Ah yes, the telltale sign that what is to follow is not going to be respectful.

Greg, I realize that you like to be "dramatic for affect", as you put it, but could you please cool it a little with the personal stuff? Something tells me you'd be greatly offended if I made repeated judgments about your motives and what I think you do or do not do with your free time. The golden rule applies, and if that is asking too much of you, nobody is making you respond here! If you're worried about 'winning', I promise I won't do some victory dance if you bow out. You just seem very agitated by me asking questions and--as politely as I can--challenging some of your answers.

a man is a man

Previously when I asked you how you define a "man", you told me to look in the mirror. But I am not incorruptible, I am not immortal, I do not have a spiritual body. Yet someone that exists in that ontological state would still be a man in your view. So it would seem that your definition of "man" encompasses far more than just what you see in the mirror.

The issue I have with that is where you had argued before that while behavior may be different among men, ontology cannot change for it to still be a man (this is what I gathered from your very short answers).

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.

You say that, but whether you realize it or not, you not only have a view on it, but you have argued exhaustively in defense of that view. You have made a conclusion that it is impossible for a divine person to become a human being. I'm simply asking upon what basis you've made that conclusion. Is it scripture or something you just know?


And you did not respond to the last part of my post where I pointed to a very clear inconsistency in your statements here. Do you know that no one, aside from Jesus, has ever lived a sinless life or not? You had said No, and then later you said Yes.

This sort of reminds me how a certain Trinitarian, when he wasn't specifically arguing in favor of the holy spirit as a person, would repeatedly refer to it as an 'it', in distinctly impersonal terms, apparently without realizing it. In other words, I'm not sure he really believed in the conclusion for which he argued.

[Greg Logan]

Hmmm - I don't see anything re "personal judgments" in particular. In fact I said nothing in particular after that statement - except that your exegesis was incorrect.

We are both fully aware of your motivation - for degrading the standard meaning of man in any way possible - there is no reason to hide this. I do find it less than respectful of the Lord Jesus Christ and the high call of integrity we have in Him. Regardless - being open about it is good.

I am not dealing with such a foreign notion of a divine entity being transformed to a man - it simply does not exist in scripture or experience. Again - silly disputation of words.

And you did not respond to the last part of my post where I pointed to a very clear inconsistency in your statements here. Do you know that no one, aside from Jesus, has ever lived a sinless life or not? You had said No, and then later you said Yes.

I will take your word for this. Actually both my answers are correct. I personally do not know one way or the other - OTOH scriptures indicates that every man (excepting, obviously, the man Christ Jesus) has sinned - I accept this - and, certainly, based on personal experience I have no problem that everyone else has failed.

BTW - in your "divinity into humanity" notion - you would have the same problem. But it is not one that I have the least interest.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Well at least you're not saying my words are the 'whispers of Satan' anymore, so I appreciate that.

We are both fully aware of your motivation - for degrading the standard meaning of man in any way possible

When I asked you: "Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of 'man' is?" Your reply was: "Look in the mirror..."

Again, when I look in the mirror, I do not see an incorruptible, immortal, spiritual body. Do you? Yet you say that that too is a man. How is that new definition not "degrading the standard meaning of man"?

OTOH scriptures indicates that every man (excepting, obviously, the man Christ Jesus) has sinned

Am I supposed to believe that every single human that has ever lived, aside from Jesus, could have chosen to be sinless, but every single one, aside from Jesus, just chose not to? You don't find that...miraculous?


Here's a related question: How does Jesus' death save others?

[Greg Logan]

TJ

Again - you are spending all your time on silly disputations - and NOT on the end of the charge which is.... (I bet you can repeat for yourself). None of this type of thinking is making you and I edified or anyone else - it is useless and meaningless pedantry.

Again, when I look in the mirror, I do not see an incorruptible, immortal, spiritual body. Do you? Yet you say that that too is a man. How is that new definition not "degrading the standard meaning of man"?

Not a new definition - you were a zygote, then a fetus, then a baby, then an infant, etc. You are a man in ALL these phases - still a man - NOT a divine being.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Are you willing to answer my questions?


Where in the "standard meaning of man" is there room for an incorruptible, immortal person with a spiritual body? Is that what you see when you look in the mirror? Or is that a whole different type of existence?

Am I supposed to believe that every single human that has ever lived, aside from Jesus, could have chosen to be sinless, but every single one, aside from Jesus, just chose not to? You don't find that...miraculous?

How does Jesus' death save others?

[Greg Logan]

TJ

re: Man
These are not relevant questions to me - they do not engender agape out of a pure heart. We know what a man is - when someone has to ask what a man is - well, they are a very different place than a simple and pure walk in Christ in the Kingdom of God.

re: Sinlessness
Likewise - I am not worried about these things - I simply accept the text as written. There is no benefit to the spirit - these sort of questions are just a tickling of the flesh. We are called to holiness and purity - and meeting God. My question for you - is that happening in your life?? Are you genuinely meeting God in your life - are you seeing the transforming power of God working holiness and purity into your soul? Healing? Paul is clear - these are what matters - and where are focus is to be - not on idle questions that have no edification and no scriptural basis but are simply the sort of questions the Scholastics wondered such as how many angels can fornicate on the head of a pin level question.

How does Jesus death save mankind? That is a great question - but beyond the scope of our interaction since it is soteriological - not Christological. I am open to dealing with that but do not have the capacity at the moment.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

We know what a man is

Actually that's the problem. You are saying that a man has the exact same ontological existence as you and I...except of course when he has a completely different ontological existence. You are refusing to address that glaring inconsistency and instead go back to your favorite red herring of attacking my motives for pointing out the glaring inconsistency. That is not an answer.

Greg, I'm seeing very little difference between your 'just-trust-me-on-the-things-that-don't-make-sense-or-else-you're-a-heretic' argument and your run-of-the-mill Trinitarian's 'just-trust-me-on-the-things-that-don't-make-sense-or-else-you're-a-heretic' argument. It's looking like either way something is not going to make good sense and I'm still a heretic.

re: Sinlessness
Likewise - I am not worried about these things

OK, so again, you say that man is certainly not born with a sinful nature and that literally any one of us could simply choose to never sin, but astoundingly, absolutely nobody has ever decided to do that. Except of course for the one man that was 'imported' into the human race from outside of Adam's paternal line via a miraculous virgin birth. But 'don't worry about it' is your only response?

It sounds as though you're asking me to put the blinders on and ignore the common sense that perhaps these are important factors that we should consider.

[Greg Logan]

You are saying that a man has the exact same ontological existence as you and I...except of course when he has a completely different ontological existence.

TJ

That is not what I said - what I said is that at any given stage in a human's life we are what we are - the zygote stage, the earthly stage (which is what Jesus was - what you and I are), the heavenly stage (which is what Jesus is, what you and I will be). Then I said - you and I both know what the earthly stage of a man is... and to have to ask a million questions to denigrate the painfully obvious - is the kind of behavior that is repeatedly condemned by Paul - and really by Jesus against the Pharisees and Sadducees who asked him all the irrrelevant, meaningless questions along these same lines - for the same purposes.

There is no "trust me" - because you yourself know EXACTLY what a man is - and every other man will acknowledge the same. You and I know the simple, clear, formal texts which state that Jesus is a man. In contrast, trins only have an ideological model - a model that does NOT have "a man" but an impersonal human nature. Completely different reality. Trins raise texts that do NOT say what they say mean at ANY level - and are ALWAYS based on assumptions - rather than being clear, simple, repeated and formal.

TJ - you are making your issues to be "important factors" - you are doing everything you can to preserve a faulty exegesis of about a half dozen texts and two main concepts - rather than accept the simplicity and clarity of the VERY straight forward texts that make the specific statements I make. Only by the most excruciating mental gymnastics are you desperately try to upend these these very simple, straight-forward clear, formal texts. Followers of Jesus simply do not behave like that. That is why I asked you the real question - as Jesus asked the Phariees the real question -

We are called to holiness and purity - and meeting God. My question for you - is that happening in your life?? Are you genuinely meeting God in your life - are you seeing the transforming power of God working holiness and purity into your soul? Healing?

Greg

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

what I said is that at any given stage in a human's life we are what we are - the zygote stage, the earthly stage (which is what Jesus was - what you and I are), the heavenly stage (which is what Jesus is, what you and I will be).

You're trying to sneak an ontological change in there. Throughout the natural life cycle, a human exists in an ontological state that is mortal, corruptible, physical. If/when a person is resurrected, he 'shares in divine nature' and becomes immortal, corruptible, with a spiritual body.

Your definition of 'man' encompasses two ontological states of existence. That you've caught on to this is apparent in your modified statement below:

Then I said - you and I both know what the earthly stage of a man is...

You have never said that. You changed "man" to "the earthly stage of a man", evidently realizing that when you look in the mirror, your two-state-ontology definition of "man" might be too general a word for your current ontology. Though you say you are a man and Jesus is also currently a man, you are not immortal, incorruptible and with a spiritual body. You aren't a sharer in divine nature. So you qualified the type of man you are. Which brings us to my next point.

If you now recognize that a man can exist in two ontological states, either a heavenly or an earthly one, then your statement "Jesus is a MAN" as an argument against pre-existence would seem to be completely undermined. According to your own definition of "man", "Jesus is a MAN" could mean he existed in either a heavenly or earthly state (or both!).


I'm curious of your thoughts on this statement from www.biblicalunitarian.com:

Keep in mind that we strongly affirm the reality and necessity of the virgin birth of Christ as the only way he could have been born without the inherent sin of mankind that would have disqualified him from becoming the Lamb of God.

That sounds like an essential belief.

[Greg Logan]

TJ

You are defining ontological reality differently than I am. I am sticking with the reality in ICor15. A divine being does not have "a glorified body". A human being does - still a human being regardless.

I could not care less what "biblicalunitarian.com" says - that is Weirweille's disciples - Schoenheit and the rest. Some good things - as everybody - including you - have - and some complete garbage inc. their exegesis of Jn1:10

Best,
Greg