It doesn’t in Christianity. It refers to a single substance.
And all others are subdivisions of God’s glory.
1 Like
Happy new year to all Biologists - or should it be Biologosts or Biologosists or Biologhosts?
Fascinating to see this thread still going. Long forgotten its origins and wondering as usual at this time of year who might have made it into the new year and who might now hopefully be at one with God and therefore in eternal life.
One more Christmas gone and one more year of worry about us having turned Christmas into the pinnacle of sin, the celebration of human wishful thinking. What does it mean that Jesus was born free of sin? Did it mean that he had to be conceived without copulation as this is how sin is transmitted, e.g. is sin an STD?That would give a boost to in vitro fertilisation, no sex, just clean sterile science and technology, free of the contamination of sex. Yet to me invitro fertilisation is the ultimate method of the transmission of sin as those children are a pure product of human will over submission to “thy will to be done”, especially if the child is denied access to one of its natural parents.
My understanding of the Immaculate_Conception is, that in order to be free of original sin, that the child was not conceived by the will of man for the sake of procreation of oneself, ones tribe, thus glorifying the self. Thus my understanding of Mary being raped under military occupation by a roman soldier would fit such a conception as it would have been against the wish of procreation as the act was performed as a death sentence to the woman as to either kill herself or to be killed by her own people. The decision to submit to such a pregnancy is not born out of human wishful thinking and still seen as unworthy and dispensable in “modern” society. Whist I find that not surprising in the light of the moral deprivation of egocentric naturalism the comment by Theologians like NT Wright that such a claim would be a slur on Christianity is alarming. To me such statement is a declaration of theological bankruptcy as it suggests a discriminatory value of life that would be in disagreement with the sanctity of life per se. It would be nice to get him to explain himself or perhaps anyone who shares his opinion as to why Mary becoming pregnant in rape would be a slur with regards to God or Christianity. Logically it would solve the problem of Jesu to be without sin, e.g. human will being a stain on his existence and him being the extension of his biological fathers will which would be his sinful inheritance, e.g.“Erbsünde”. Let alone it would make his birth as well as his death on the cross a miracle, e.g. a sign of God not as in being an act of magic or “un-naturalism” as some people think of miracles but the logically coherent sign of God. It makes sense of the word of God not being “abracadabra” but “love thy neighbour like your own” becoming flesh, und the profound power of this word in both instances to turn an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope. If that is not the most powerful demonstration of the power of love, then what is? The best thing is that we are all given this power to make that difference our self by submitting to his will.
But these verses are before the last judgement, not after as you said earlier. Make up your mind.
Thanks for the suggestion.
My mind in this matter is as follows:
The statement:
I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
Can be interpreted in two ways:
1
God will not give his glory to idols.
In this sense the statement can be considered in force till the last judgement, since till this day there may be people on earth “who trust in idols, who say to images, ‘You are our gods’”.
After the Day of Judgement, God’s warning will no longer be necessary.
2
God will not give his glory to someone who is not God.
In this sense, the crucial verses John 17: 22-24 and Romans 8:17 can be considered to convey the following message:
After the last judgement Jesus Christ will give to the saints in heaven the glory the Son received from the Father before the creation of the world, and this glory will complete the sanctification process and make that the saints become God.
This is very much the message the following verse conveys too:
Romans 8: 14-16:
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
Someone who cry “Abba” to the Father by the Spirit of God, is truly adopted God’s son, and thereby entirely God in the Son: After the last judgement there will no longer be “creatures” because God will be all in all.
No. It won’t. Becoming completely and lovingly obedient to my Father with no residual desire to sin or being capable of sinning unintentionally does not make me him.
Since when do adopted children actually become their adoptive fathers? Since never and never will. There must be something in the drinking water where you live.
There will no longer be creatures. The created will become self-existent. Good grief.
1 Like
You infer and extrapolate way beyond reason what is simply a figure of speech. It has to do with passion and love. If I were obsessive and passionate about my Lamborghini, it would be my all in all. I would not become a Lamborghini. 
Jesus’ resurrected body was physically different, describable as a ‘spiritual body’, but it did not become pure spirit since it was visible, he could eat and he could be physically touched. Since we know there are more dimensions than the four spacetime ones we inhabit, it is reasonable to infer that is what is the intended meaning of a ‘spiritual body’ is – not confined to our natural dimensions. That does not mean we become God.
1 Like
I don’t think so. It doesn’t mean what you need it and want it to mean.
1 Like
I am doing nothing other than interpreting
Scripture:
I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
with Scripture:
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me , that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. […] 24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world . (John 17:22-24)
17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:17)
That’s what everyone does.
This exciting discussion is leading me to the insight that defining God as “self-existent” may be misleading.
In any case it is crucial to realize that:
God is NOT an “existing self” or “a single personal identity”.
God is:
“Three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) co-existing and sharing a single act of being”.
Each of these three persons is in relationship with the two others.
God’s act of being or God’s life consists in this relationship, God is a relational entity.
The Father cannot be said to be “self-existent”, in the sense of “existing by himself”, independently of the other two divine persons. And the same holds for the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are CO-EXISTENT; it is these three persons all together who say: “I am who I am”.
A further important point is that these three divine persons decided to bring about other persons (the angels and the human beings) and ordered and called them to be in loving relationship with them (the three divine persons), and with each other (the other angels and humans). To be a person does not mean to be called to exist as an individual for himself, it means to be called to co-exist with other persons.
In this sense, the human beings are projected towards unification with the three divine Persons, towards divinization. After the last judgement we will NOT become “self-existent”: We will CO-EXIST for ever with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And this is what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas) mean by stating that “God became human so that we might become God”.
At the end of the day of judgement, the creation of the angels and human beings will appear as sort of “God’s growth” that increases the number of ‘selves’ (not of persons) co-existing in God, according to John 17:21-23:
“ that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us […]. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.
This “expansion of God” will be achieved after the last judgement.
1 Corinthians 15: 24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all .
If you look at this whole context, it is plain that it is NOT “simply a figure of speech”!
In my view, it is you who “infer and extrapolate way beyond reason”.
Well, it certainly does not mean “we become God”! That has been demonstrated amply elsewhere. Please excuse me from further discourse about this.
1 Like
You are excused to leave when you want.
I have appreciated your interest in the thread, but can’t help stating that nothing “has been demonstrated amply elsewhere”.
Two examples:
You argue that we cannot become God after the last judgement because “we will have resurrected bodies, like our Lord’s”.
From this it follows that our Lord himself cannot be God!
A really astonishing demonstration!
Is this a “demonstration”?
You are conveying the impression you think you are God Father ruling as Supreme Judge about who is mistaken, long “before the Last Judgment”! 
It does not. Was the Holy Spirit encapsulated in Jesus’ body? Was God the Father? Oh, I guess not.
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
if God is the sea you can look at the clouds to be those who separated from God so if we are the raindrops we are ourselves and will remain so for a while until in the end we become part of the sea again. But we are then not our “self” any more and not God but the drop in the sea that is now part of the sea. so we are part of God again. hope you can follow my drift and make the model more complete and coherent.
1 Like
According to the teaching of Jesus-Christ, God consists in the relationship between three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Before I answer your interesting comment I would be thankful to know whether or not you share this belief in the Holy Trinity.
mY PICTURE OF THE TRINITY IS HOWEVER DIFFERENT AS BEING A Venn diagram with God containing two circles inside the larger circle, thus showing all of Jesus to be God. So perhaps you could imagine God as the body of water with Jesus being the ocean and the clouds being the spirit with us being the drops breaking free and struggling to find our way back to the pool
I am afraid that you are not asking the relevant questions:
Is God the Son “encapsulated” in Jesus’ body?
Is the resurrected Jesus truly God?
Is the resurrected Jesus’ body a true human body?
According to Scripture the answer is:
Jesus’ resurrected body is a true human body, and the resurrected Jesus is truly God.
As far as you agree to this basic teaching, then:
From having a resurrected body, you are not allowed to infer that someone cannot be God!
What you claim that “has been demonstrated amply elsewhere”:
Is a blatant non sequitur !
Jesus can, you and I cannot.
In any case, you acknowledge that someone can have a resurrected body and be God.
Good point!
Now the question arises:
As a matter of fact, the Trinity decided that God the Son becomes flesh and and shares a true human body.
If “God is spirit”, to which specific aim did God this “madness”?