Posted by A2 on 4/25/2001, 4:19 pm

Some observations about words and meaning... Posted by Steve B. on 4/4/2001, 9:00 pm , in reply to "Do Trinitarians believe that the personage of Jesus is just human?" A2, A lot of your questions are based on definitions that we don't agree on. If you ask questions based upon your definitions of a word (or words), I usually must first correct some mistaken notions about what I myself mean by the same word (or words). Our present difficulties result from the fact that you refuse to hear those corrections, and instead press ahead, insisting that I must mean what you think I mean, not what I say I mean. Consequently, your remarks get further and further from reality, lending them the “disassociated, Alice-in-Wonderland” quality that I mentioned in my previous posting. This is not an intentional insult, but rather the best description I can think of that conveys my impression of your postings. I am continually asking myself whether you are really sincere in trying to communicate, whether you are just furiously trying to kick up dust around every single thing I say, or whether it's a little bit of both combined with an almost manic defensiveness that renders you genuinely unable to deal with words and their meaings. In any case, since I don't understand how what you say relates to my postings, but can see that you continue to arrive at mistaken conclusions about my meaning, I have little choice but to keep correcting those conclusions. You ask in the title of your above posting Do Trinitarians believe that the personage of Jesus is just human? Since you have previously said you don't accept my beliefs as “orthodox” trinitarian doctrine, I again note for the record my surprise at being asked by you what trinitarians believe. However, since you ask, I will again give what I myself believe. As far as I know it is in agreement with trinitarian doctrine, but I was led to this position by the Biblical witness, not by consciously seeking out a trinitarian position. I see Jesus as one person with two natures. Before he became man, he was the person the Bible calls the Son of God, the Word who existed with God and as God in the beginning. As such, he of course had the nature of God, as Philippians 2 confirms when it says he was in the “form” (Greek morphe—a manifestation of an inner nature) of God before being made in the likeness of man. When he was made in that likeness, he also took upon himself that nature (i.e., of humanity), but still continued to be the person known as the Son of God. Therefore, I cannot say “the personage of Jesus is just human,” but say that the person of Jesus is both human and divine. And, just for the sake of clarity, the reason I believe he is both a human and divine person is because I believe the Bible shows he has both of those natures. Note especially that by saying he has the nature of deity, I do not refer to the Father in him, but to the nature Jesus himself has had as the Son of God since the beginning. When he became man, this person took on the nature of humanity as well as the divine nature, and so became human. So because this person also has the nature of God, he cannot be said to be “just human.” Sincerely, Steve ---------- This plain not true Posted by Anon.II on 4/5/2001, 8:48 am , in reply to "Some observations about words and meaning..." I'm not insisting that you mean what I mean. This is just plain ludicrous. I'm insisting that you stop insisting that your understanding of your doctrine is NOT WHAT I SEE IN THE WORD. I'm not refusing to hear what your definitions of words are, I'm refusing to ACCEPT what I see as faulty translations or synonyms of what the Bible says. Who cares about man's definitions of words? I place absolutely NO TRUST in the 4th century creeds that don't even lay claim to inerrancy like the scriptures, and have so many holes in them that gives off a "smell" of the same straying from God's word that I see in your postings on this doctrine. Get over it. ---------- Posted by Dave Kenady on 4/5/2001, 8:12 pm , in reply to "This plain not true" I'm insisting that you stop insisting that your understanding of your doctrine is NOT WHAT I SEE IN THE WORD. Part of the problem here are discussions that have happened before this discussion got started between you and Steve. There HAS been Oneness statements to the effect that Jesus is God by reason of the fact that God is in Him, that it is the Father in the Son that is the Deity of Christ. This would not be synonymous with saying Jesus is one Person who is both God and man. The man is not God by definition. Therefore, there must be 2 involved, not one. One who is man and One who is God. Else God became a man. To my best recollection, this is what the Chapel taught, that Jesus Christ was the invisible God made manifest in the Son. Steve probably just assumed that since you were 1)Oneness and 2)a former Chapelite, then you would agree with this. Apparently you don't. ---------- After all my posts to the contrary? Posted by Anon.II on 4/6/2001, 11:30 am , in reply to "Re: This plain not true" I could buy this IF I HADN'T ADDRESSED THIS MISUNDERSTANDING SO MANY TIMES IN SEVERAL OF MY POSTS. (Shesh!) ---------- I do in fact rest my case. Posted by Anon.II on 4/5/2001, 9:09 am , in reply to "Some observations about words and meaning..." By your admission here: I MUST CONCLUDE that Trinitarians believe that the personage of Jesus is NOT JUST DIVINE. Now, that wasn't so hard was it? Man, that was like pulling teeth! (However, I still continue to see your Phil.2 "interpretation", as faulty, saying that Jesus was in the form of God before his birth has not been proven at all.) PS: Notice that I'm repeating my objection is to proper handling of the word, not your seriously mistaken evaluation of OF ME NOT HEARING YOUR CORRECTIONS? Your corrections.....are not correct. ---------- Attachment: Your admission Posted by Anon.II on 4/5/2001, 9:15 am , in reply to "Some observations about words and meaning..." "I see Jesus as one person with two natures. Before he became man, he was the person the Bible calls the Son of God, the Word who existed with God and as God in the beginning. As such, he of course had the nature of God, as Philippians 2 confirms when it says he was in the “form” (Greek morphe—a manifestation of an inner nature) of God before being made in the likeness of man. When he was made in that likeness, he also took upon himself that nature (i.e., of humanity), but still continued to be the person known as the Son of God." ---------- How richly bizarre... Posted by Steve B. on 4/5/2001, 8:24 pm , in reply to "I do in fact rest my case." A2, A big blank spot where my “admission” is supposed to be! That's kind of interesting, A2. Nice touch. I did not know the Freudian approach was part of your repertoire. However, you kind of spoiled the effect by awkwardly tossing it in there afterwards as an “attachment.” Kind of embarassing to have three posts bunched up all together like that, especially when the mistake in the title of the first one makes you sound like a hick. Just joking, A2! Just joking. We all make typos! But all kidding aside, let me be the first one (and from the looks of it, the only one) to congratulate you on pulling the admission out of me that "Trinitarians believe that the personage of Jesus is not just divine." Of course, that's what I've said all along, that's what I've also said trinitarians believe all along, and there's no reason to regard it as a significant point in the context of our debate, but—hey!—let's forget all that confusing intellectual stuff. Congratulations on a job well done! It was a very entertaining thing to watch, and I am firmly convinced that no one else would be capable of doing the same job, or of doing it in such a consistently interesting way. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Joking at another's expense is called Mocking Posted by Anon.II on 4/6/2001, 11:23 am , in reply to "How richly bizarre..." Ah....the condesention, how do I make it from day to day without it? ---------- Posted by Anon.II on 4/6/2001, 11:24 am , in reply to "How richly bizarre..." Ah-h-h-h-h....the condesention, how do I make it from day to day without it?