To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your response.

You are defining ontological reality differently than I am.

Then could you please define "ontological reality" as you are using it? Is it not the state or nature of one's existence? How can you say that there is no ontological change from Jesus' earthly existence to his current, heavenly existence?

To me, just saying he's still a man is meaningless because that's just an insistence on maintaining a label, yet ontologically-speaking, his entire nature has been changed into something different.

A divine being does not have "a glorified body".

What type of body does a "divine being" have?

I could not care less what "biblicalunitarian.com" says

OK. I would be interested for you to interact more with the repercussions of your stated view that man can choose to not ever sin, how that is completely contrary to what you even acknowledge is the reality we see. But it seems you're not interested in defending that view. If it's take-it-or-leave-it, I've got to leave that one.


I would also be very interested in understanding how you believe Jesus' sacrificial death saves others, which I believe to be inseparable from the topics we've been discussing. But again, that's up to you.

The Trinitarian position always confuses me. They'll often use Anselm's argument that an infinite debt requires an infinite sacrifice, and that's why God had to die for our sins. Not only is the 'infinite' debt/payment scenario not supported by scripture, but also they don't really believe that God died for our sins. At most, it could have only been the human nature of the Son, since neither the divine nature nor the hypostasis of the Son died according to Trinitarian orthodoxy.

[Greg Logan]

To me, just saying he's still a man is meaningless because that's just an insistence on maintaining a label, yet ontologically-speaking, his entire nature has been changed into something different.

Sorry TJ - but that is the answer - and really the whole point - the fundamental distinction between man - regardless of the stage of their body - some kind of divine being.

ICor15 - " a glorified body"

I am not really sure how to answer your soteriological question other than statements made in scripture. As you have noticed - I don't talk about God except for straight, unambiguous text - that is a fundamental hermeneutic for me.

BTW - why don't you answer my questions??

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Sorry TJ - but that is the answer - and really the whole point - the fundamental distinction between man - regardless of the stage of their body - some kind of divine being.

I don't know what you're saying here, especially with that last part. Could you please define how you are using "ontological reality"? Is it not the state or nature of one's existence?

ICor15 - " a glorified body"

What type of body does a divine being have?

As you have noticed - I don't talk about God except for straight, unambiguous text - that is a fundamental hermeneutic for me.

I believe our God-given reason should play a role along with God-given revelation. One cannot reason himself to all truth, revelation is required. But where there is revelation, it should always be reasonable. I work upon that basis of understanding.

BTW - why don't you answer my questions??

Greg, to be honest, I don't like the personal stuff you seem to want to get into and so I choose to not respond to any of those questions. You've already made judgments and assumptions about me based solely on my asking you questions about your beliefs and giving reasonable and (hopefully) polite challenges to some of your answers. I don't care for the drama, IMO it serves only to distract attention away from what I'm seeking here.

Again, I do appreciate the substantive answers when I do receive them.

[Greg Logan]

ontological reality - man or divine being

divine beings have divine being "bodies"

straight, unambiguous text - "there is one God (how many?) AND (someone other than the one God) - the M-A-N (we all know what a man is - and no one would ask if there was not a theological axe to grind) Christ Jesus (yup, that guy...)>

Not sure how you can get any more straight and unambiguous with language....

My questions are actually substantial - and what really matters. Most of the stuff you are asking me is mental masturbation - it has absolutely no value to eternal life. That is a pretty big difference. I am not tearing you down by telling you the truth - I am trying to break through the bondage that you are in - whether you see it or not. There is a spiritual issue behind it. Not to say that I don't have my own issues - but I have long ago worked through the irrelevant disputations that you are enamored by.

I think for me to go forward we need to focus on substance.

[Greg Logan]

BTW - I am realizing that I have all this interaction with you - BUT failed to be in prayer about you or our interaction. That is my failure. I think it might be good to take a week or so and include this in prayer. Then re-connect and see if you want to focus on substance...

What do you think?

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

ontological reality - man or divine being

This didn't answer my question, specifically the last part: Could you please define how you are using "ontological reality"? Is it not the state or nature of one's existence?

You are effectively arguing that "man" can exist in two different 'ontological realities', an earthly one and a heavenly one. These are two entirely different natures or states of existence. If you disagree with that statement, please clearly define what "ontological reality" means to you.

divine beings have divine being "bodies"

Are those bodies glorified? Are they spiritual?

In what way will Christians share in the divine nature? 2 Peter 1:4 seems like a 'straight and unambiguous text' after all, which brings us to your next point:

straight, unambiguous text - "there is one God (how many?) AND (someone other than the one God) - the M-A-N (we all know what a man is - and no one would ask if there was not a theological axe to grind) Christ Jesus (yup, that guy...)>

Not sure how you can get any more straight and unambiguous with language....

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all," (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

I can only guess that you are trying to reinforce your two-state-ontology definition for "man" here, but I'm not even sure that's necessary. I really don't think Paul is teaching a point of doctrine on Jesus' current state of existence, but instead he seems to be making reference to just how Jesus has become mediator between God and men.

It was as a man (the type you see when you look in the mirror) that Jesus gave his life as the sacrifice required to inaugerate the New Covenant. Thus that man, Jesus, became mediator on that very day. We also see that the man Moses was the mediator of the Law Covenant for as long as that covenant was in effect, which was long after he had died and ceased to be a man. Likewise, the man Abraham was still being recognized as the Father of the Jewish people even in Jesus' day.

What I'm getting at that you can't read just your pet verse in isolation. Romans 3:10 is 'straight and unambiguous', but you still qualified its meaning by looking to other scriptural passages.

How do you view the "new creation" mentioned at 2 Corinthians 5:17? Is it truly new or not?

I think it might be good to take a week or so

Take all the time you need.

[TJ]

Hello Greg,

Are you done with our discussion?

[Greg Logan]

TJ

Admittedly, I had forgotten about this - but as I briefly reviewed, I see that you were working hard to avoid the simple standard meaning of words, e.g. "man" means "man". It seemed apparent to me that the reason that you were engaged in this behavior (and justifying it as a sort of "Academic inquiry") was because of your love of your Christological tradition - in contrast to loving the simple and clear truth. I found that to be an unacceptable basis of fellowship as the integrity of Christ is far greater than such a love for tradition.

16 But be shunning the profane[l] empty-chatterings.

23 And be declining the foolish and ignorant controversies, knowing that they breed battles.

3 If anyone teaches-different-doctrines, and does not come-to[d] healthy[e] words— the ones of our Lord Jesus Christ— and to the teaching in accordance with godliness, 4 he has become conceited[f], understanding nothing, but being diseased[g] with respect to controversies and WORD BATTLES, out of which comes envy, strife, blasphemies, evil suspicions, 5 constant-frictions, from people having been corrupted as to the mind and robbed[h] of the truth, while supposing that godliness is a means-of-gain.

When you are ready to accept the standard meanings of words - and prioritize the simple clear texts of scripture, I will be happy to re-join the conversation.

Best wishes,

Greg Logan

PS OTOH - I an interested in becoming familiar the software tool you are using to as well as the site you are using. I am interested in setting up such a site. If you are interested in that discussion, I would be happy to join.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Welcome back!

I see that you were working hard to avoid the simple standard meaning of words, e.g. "man" means "man".

You keep saying this, but the truth is quite the opposite.

I am the one using "the simple standard meaning" of the word "man", you are using a very non-standard meaning of the term that includes those that have been 'changed' into a different nature. (1 Cor. 15:51) I still believe a man is 'what you see when you look in the mirror' (which is how you first defined the standard meaning of "man"). But as you have more recently been using it, the term "man" now also encompasses an entirely different ontological state of existence, i.e. a heavenly one.

Do you see a heavenly being when you look in the mirror? If the answer is No, then you are not using "the simple standard meaning" of the word, Greg.

[Greg Logan]

TJ

That is simply a timing issue. Our focus is on men in their pre-glorified state - though one can ask about their glorified state but I have no interest in that since that is not my focus.

The reality of course is that you don't believe a man is a man - because you believe a pre-incarnate divine being encased in human flesh is a man. That is NOT what anyone sees in the mirror.

Best,

Greg