Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani

(Edward Miller) #22

It is true that Jesus looked upon sin in this world; however, you must take into consideration that He had two natures: one 100% human and the other 100% Divine. When I say that God the Father could not look upon sin, that means that the Father did not have a human nature and was purely Holy. Only God the Son had a human nature. God the Father could not view sin, but the human nature of Jesus could most certainly do it. Jahweh Elohim could not look at the sin that was put upon the human nature of our Lord Jesus. In order to show you that there was some difference between the human nature and Divine nature of Jesus, please read in your Bible Mark 13:32. Explain that if you can. Surely the Divine nature knew the answer. God bless you in your path of learning. Also, Jesus the human could not sin because of his Divine nature. Why do you think he was able to resist Satan in the wilderness? @bluebird, @Reggie_O_Donoghue


Can you provide any verse that says that? Did you read that link?

What about Job 1:6 “One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them.”

Satan th father if lies, the embodiment of sin, was in the presence of God.

That’s seems pretty clear to me that only the Father. Not even the God part of Jesus. I don’t see why you continue to say Surely the divine nature knew. It doesn’t say the divine nature knew, it clearly and explicitly says “only the Father”. It even excludes a member of the divine trinity, the Son.

I don’t see any verse saying that. Jesus didn’t sin, but who is to say He couldn’t? Perfection is a state only attained after taking a test or endearing a trial. Like in baseball, if you go all 9 innings and not a single hit or score, a perfect game. Those are in the stands or on the bench or even the outfielders are not given the credit or ability to score a perfect game. His perfection was proven, not guaranteed.

Jesus was able to resist sin because He never rejected God and fully depended on God throughout His life, it was more God living through Him and the Spirit helping Him.

I guess that is where my logic leads me. There is no verse saying your or my thoughts are correct.

A lamb wasn’t born spotless either. It had to endure wolfs and pests and nature, and only after it endured all of that and remained spotless, was it able to be sacrificed.

But it is clear Jesus was tempted. One cannot be tempted if one could not sin. It isn’t a trial if you can’t fail.

I believe after receiving Jesus and being reconciled back to God, it is fully possible to live the rest of your life sinless. It isn’t very likely or easy, and it wouldn’t make one perfect and it certainly wouldn’t make one not need God. As God is the only way to be sinless, Full submission to God is the only way to not sin, that is what Jesus demonstrated. He never rejected God or perverted His status as an image bearer of God that were all given and ruined. And He depended on God to help Him live a perfect life.

If Adam trusted in God and obeyed His perfect will, he also would have been able to resist Satan. He never would have rejected God or His ways.

Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on the earth” (Colossians 3:2). Paul warned the Roman church, “The mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace” (Romans 8:6)

Jesus always points us to the God. Even the Son of God in human form could not, not sin of His own will and merits. We can’t not sin if we try to not sin, the law shows us this. Rejection of Gods ways is sin, rejecting dependence of God as we live life is sin (which leads to much more sin). Trying not to sin of our own strength is a sin and will lead you to sin. Jesus showed us the only way not to sin is to look to God. Stop trying to make fruit, duplicate fruit, it had no nutrients in it. The only nutritious fruit you can have comes from allowing God to grow it from within you. You can’t try to grow fruit, or make it, you let Him make it in you, He is the living water, the soil is His word and truth. The second you try your own and shut off that water, you bear sickness and rotten fruit.

We can do nothing apart from God, and in God, we can do anything. That’s has always been true, Jesus revealed this truth to us and validated it by living it.

(Edward Miller) #24

The Divine Nature could not sin. If it could, God the Father could sin and that would mean that He could not free us from sin. I believe everyone here has given you enough Holy Scripture. If you will not accept those, you will accept none. Did you read Mark 13 or at least Mark 13:32? I don’t think so. Give me an explanation of the two natures expressed there. If you cannot, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Circular arguments lead no where. May God bless you in your quest for truth. I have no hard feelings toward you. You are just trying to get an answer to the truth. Pilate did this when he asked Jesus: Quid est veritas,i.e., what is truth? Jesus resisting Satan is in the Synoptic Gospels. Read where Jesus leaves John the Baptist after John baptized him. You should find the Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness. I could tell you more, but apparently you need to seek this on your own and stop doubting. Again, God bless you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oh, by the way, is Steve McVey a Trinitarian Universalist?

@Reggie_O_Donoghue, @bluebird

(Robin) #25

Reggie…A coworker of mine has a 3200-square-foot house on four acres by a rural intersection. People dump unwanted cats at that intersection and my coworker takes them in. She always has at least 36 cats in her house, and sometimes up to 50.

If you go to visit, you look one way and find a cat cleaning its personal parts on the kitchen counter and another cat walking along the railing near the top of the stairway…and still another staring intently at you from some other perch. Try to sit down, and you find that six cats call that seat “home.” Find an empty armchair and — YEOW!!!— there was a black cat that just blended in with the black seat cover. Stand still long enough and you will feel a paw on one shoulder while another cat does figure-8s around your feet.

This somewhat describes your last post. And maybe this is because you decided to respond all at once to a number of people. Not sure, but that might be it. You did, in some other post, say that Jesus is not God (and a few other things), which in the last post you seemed to want to re-interpret, or at least to claim that you did not mean that or —??? and then you tried to explain that you found this hard to explain…and that you were not contradicting yourself, but…??? It left me a bit perplexed, like when I am at that coworker’s house and think I have found a good spot to sit…when suddenly I hear someone burping up a furball…

You did initially come onto this particular post with a couple questions that you said puzzled you.— that is, why Jesus would have asked God if he had forsaken him if Jesus was God Himself and if He knew His death was to save humanity? The answer to the first part was that the question from the first part of Psalm 22 was a statement of the grief and separation that Jesus felt — as God the Son — and that God the Father also felt. It also tied that psalm in with the whole bucketful of other Old Testament passages that had Messianic import.

As for the second part, the answer (in part) was that He was paying the price for the sins of Reggie O. Donoghue and the sins of bluebird and of Edward and everyone else on this blog — and in the world. This price involved separation from the Father—because, ultimately, that is the fate of all who have sinned — and in that latter case, the separation is eternal…The punishment Jesus endured ( the beatings etc) was a reflection of what you and I deserve — even though we hardly think it of ourselves.

…In Jewish practice, there was a moment when the High Priest — only one person of all the individuals in Israel — entered the presence of God in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. It only happened once each year. This in itself was illustrative of the distance between man and Creator, which was created by our sinfulness. Yes, God may “see” our sin — and does. But it does not mean sin is “kryptonite” to Him. It means it is repulsive and He will not be present with it.

This action by the High Priest was necessary if he was to intercede for the sins of the nation. But if the High Priest had, at that moment, some sin in him, he could be struck dead. He would not be able to make restitution for the nation, or for himself, for that matter. They tied a cord around one of his feet so that, if he were struck dead, his corpse could be dragged out of the Holy of Holies. No one else could enter the presence of God directly to rescue the corpse otherwise. That was the reason for the cord around one of his feet.

This is one example among many others wherein the statements that God cannot look upon sin are made. There are others. It is said that — in past millennia — it was a curiosity to other nations that Israel had a deity who allowed no image of Himself and a place in the Temple in which no one was allowed to enter, except one man once a year. It is my understanding that there were two occasions in history when some foreign king decided to try his luck at this — or to have one of his officials try their luck. In at least one occasion, it did not go well for that foreign visitor but I am not sure how other (s) fared.

That requirement, or law, that distinguished biblical faith was an illustration of how deeply human evil has offended the highest levels of the Universe — that is, God Himself who is holy. Our sin is not charming. It is not just some little problem based on a bad childhood or a self-help book that gave bad advice.

Sin is rebellion against God, at its deepest level. This rebellion tossed the original members of the human race out of the “garden” where they had lived in relationship with each other and with God. They lost both relationships (the horizontal and the vertical) in the Fall.

And to restore that relationship — this is an action undertaken by God. You and I cannot do it, because it took Someone without sin to make it right. And we (if we are honest) do not much want much to do with God. It is God who wants us. But to make restoration of our relationship with Him even possible — it cost God everything — including His Son . “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” — Romans 5:8

But this can only come through accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me”, said Jesus.

It is not an automatic conferral upon every human being — like walking into a woodworker’s shop and being sprinkled by the sawdust in the air. You have to turn to God and repent

You may think that you could say “I and the Father are One” — and be referring to your own son. But if you had said that in first-century Judea and Galilee, you would have been making a statement of equality with God—in other words, you would be claiming to be God. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”. No one would have thought you were talking about the little man by your side.

As I said, we are talking about what these things meant to those who heard them originally, whose cultural milieu these thoughts and phrases were formed in. This is not the place for New Age-y re-application.

Since you were everywhere – like 50 cats in a house — in your last posting, I decided to just revisit the questions that started off your conversation with people online here. Christians believe Jesus was both 100 percent God and 100 percent man. But He knew Who He was. And He knew why He was here — to pay for the sins of humanity. “He came to his own and His own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God…” (Jon 1: 11-12)

And yes, I did check out Steve McVey…I could not tell much about him online.,His bio only lists the books he has written and that he has a wife and kids and grandkids in Atlanta. Amazon.com had a number of reviews of one of his books. I will not get too much into that because this is not part of your original question and getting into another issue seems somehow distracting.

Have a blessed Sunday…

(Edward Miller) #26

A very good answer, bluebird. Oh, Steve McVey is a Universalist. It seems that traditional Christians are not very happy with him. Since I am a traditional evangelical Christian, I do not agree with him either. I found several articles on this and also the origin of his ministry. May God bless everyone here and give everyone peace. I will now depart from this particular topic.


In Jesus’ day the psalms were identified by the first line. It was like Jesus shouting, “Psalm 22:1”. When his hearers read Psalm 22, they would no doubt see the many fulfilled prophecies included in that Psalm.

(Edward Miller) #28

I like your answer.:grinning: It is correct.

(Robin) #29

I appreciate your response and your thoughts on McVey. There was another McVey decades back —different first name, though. He was a high priest of the Church of Satan. Not a good name association—and not likely related. Blessings!!!


I read it. I also said it clearly says “nor the Son, but only the Father” I need you to expand on the 2 natures, I don’t follow you here. It seems to support my argument than yours when I read it. That is why I think what I think. It isn’t an agenda or a side or a denomination I am trying to make it fit, I am reading it as I see it.

I have no clue, he is not the 1st person I have heard say that. I simply googled “God cannot look upon sin” and That article came up. I read it, agreed, and linked it.

I don’t judge someone based on their denomination, if they speak the truth from the scriptures and it is logical, I go with that.

It really seems to me like you are more of a hard core denominationalist, who seems to be more concerned about doctrine than knowing truth or asking questions.

I have no doubts in any of my posts. But I assume because for whatever reason, you keep referring to me as reggie and I am not. Reggie has some questions, I had some answers.

I can say the same to you brother.

My name is @still_learning, not Reggie…Though Reggie asked some questions and you answered some of them, you are referring to my quotes, so I have to assume you are talking to me?

I apologize for that. I am not the most eloquent speaker/writer. I get passionate about knowing God and get long winded at times. Something that seems so simple and obvious to me, I have a hard time seeing how you see it differently, so I have to assume why you could think like that, and then counter that argument. But it seems you are doing the same for me, as you keep referring to scriptures that seem to back up what I say, and then appeal to truths that we both agree on.

I am agreeing with you here.

I agree with most of this, but I think again in relative terms, the beatings were small fries compared to leaving heaven to come here. I am sure getting your finger cut off would hurt, but compared to having every finger broken, sliced up, dipped in salt and lemon (without going into too much detail, add most gruesome torture imaginable), a cut of finger is small fries.

To clarify, I am well aware of how horrible a crucifixion was. That should make it that much more evident that I think leaving the heaven to be rejected/mocked by man your whole life and then finally being separated from God is so bad, that it makes a crucifixion look like small fries.

A 200mph car is fast, very fast…but it is very slow relative to a bullet…which is very slow relative to a photon.

Crucifixion is horrible…but nothing compared to the latter part. I am not minimizing a crucifixion, I am maximizing the actual price paid and the sacrifice the Father and the Son made.

You seem to agree with me. The person was struck dead, not God. I 100% agree God doesn’t like sin. I just don’t think it he can’t look at it. I don’t even know what you mean by that? The reason God will not be present with sin, is because sin cannot be around Him, He is holy. God is like the sun, anything not holy is consumed in the presence of the sun. Or like darkness. If a “piece of darkness” tries to go near light, it becomes illuminated. If a “piece of light” ties to get near darkness, the darkness is illuminated. Darkness cannot harm light, light is not scared of darkness. Light might not like darkness, but if light goes near darkness, the darkness becomes the light, it is consumed by the light.
Hebrews 12:29 our "God is a consuming fire."
His holiness consumes sin, so sin can’t be near Him as it will be consumed.

It isn’t like God is setting a rule “I don’t like sin and I don’t want to be around it”. It is more like God is too holy, and sin cannot be near Him. Like the sun doesn’t make rules about not liking stuff and burning it up, it just does. The consequence of getting to close to the sun, is that you burn up. The consequence of getting to close to God (when in a state of sin) is that you die.

God also didn’t make a rule that said “sin is bad it must be punished with fury” The punishment or consequences of sin are self fulfilling, like If you jump off a building, you will fall. Not because gravity is angry at you, but because it is what happens. Sin is rejecting God, God is good, when you reject goodness, bad things fill that void. We have to be full of something, before sin, it was God. We we rejected God, there was a vacuum, that sin and bad things filled. Sin isn’t really a thing, it is us rejecting God. We reject Him, He can still look upon us, and call after us, but we can no longer look at Him.

God cannot sin because of some rule. He can’t reject Himself, it is a logical fallacy. A square can’t be a circle, God cannot sin. It isn’t a moral thing, like God is super good behaving and tries really hard. He is love, only goodness exudes from Him. It isn’t like he is powerless and sin is stronger than Him and limits Him, it is just like a circle can’t be a square.

So when something not of God which included rejection of Him occurs, God can see it, He looks upon it, He isn’t limited by it.

You need to have a respect and fear of God, know who He is and how He is holy. Sinful man can’t just go up willy nilly to Him disrespectful like. Just like a commoner can’t just go up to a king like he is a friend or fellow commoner. He had to be invited, be prepared, and be respectful, and then and only then would he not die. Same with God, you had to be a high priest, you were invited once a year, and you had to prepare (purify yourself according to the law) and in fear and respect, go into the holy of holies. But a king could visit a commoner all they wanted. Just like God can visit us when He wants. He can forgive our sins and provide the protection from His holiness on His terms. Like with Isaiah, God provided a way to purify Him.

It seems again that we are agreeing, it is a mater of semantics though. We both agree that sin cannot be in the presence of God, but you say God cannot be in the presence of sin.

You named some verses where a sinful man cannot be in the presence of God. But do you have any verses where God cannot be in the presence of sinful?

What about Satan being with God in Job? What about Jacob wrestling with God? What about Moses being next to God in the burning bush? I am naming instances where God was in the presence of sinful man or Satan.

Was Jesus less than the Father? How could Jesus be in the presence of sin if the Father can’t? Is Jesus greater than the Father? Reasons like these that complicate or turn both of your arguments, that Jesus was God (born perfect and had God powers) or that God can’t look upon sin, against each other.

Gen 6:5 “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”

Now if you were to say that God cannot look upon sin in approval, I would agree with you.

I agree

I also agree

Amen, I agree with all of that

I never inferred that.

Who is new agey? I like John Walton and those who learn with the ANE read things.

I apologize for the unclarity in that. Though in my defense, I also said I will appear to contradict myself, but you have to read till the end. But I will try to clarify.

God cannot sin, or make a square a circle. If you disagree with that, then there is no need to read further. God can turn a square into a circle, but then it is no longer a square, He could make it appear to me a circle, but by definition, a square cannot be a circle. This isn’t limiting the powers of God, it is a logical impossibility.

Nothing can be more than 100%. 100% is the whole. Now you can have different categories. Like a person can be 100% male, and 100% human or 100% black or 100% royal. Those are mathematically possible because they are in different categories. But you cannot be 100% human, and 100% dog. I don’t know the right word for it, maybe you or anyone smarter can help, but biology can only be 100%. If you had some dog dna in you, you would be 1% dog and 99% human. But you can’t add up to be more than 100% in biology.

Knowing this we can know that the biological makeup of Jesus was 100% human. 0% God. do you agree with that? His heritage/lineage was 100% God. This is why it was a 50/50 “conception” Half came from God/heavens, half came from humans so God was 50% human and 50% God in that case. Adam was 100% human, we are 100% human. So when I say Jesus was not God, that is what I mean. He was a human, 100%.

Now just as a human can be 100% human AND 100% black or asian (chose your race/lineage) or 100% royal. A prince is 100% human, but also (if born from a king, 100% royal. His lineage is what makes Him royal, not his merit or acts or deeds. Jesus also did not need to do anything to “prove” His Godship, He was a Son of the Father. Jesus was 100% God.

So though it could appear as to contradict myself when I say Jesus was God and then turn around and say Jesus was not God, there is no contradiction there. Much like the Bible that appears to contradict itself, it doesn’t, we just need to read into it more and understand the context.

I realize I could have helped you infer better from my context if I make more clear “categories”, and for that I apologize.

So now, we have this 100% human Jesus. Humans could sin, they were born/created to be dependent on God and rely on His will and instructions to live eternally. But we had this propensity to sin, to reject God’s ways and try to attain perfection of our own accord. The only way to not sin, is to fully embrace dependence on God and His will 100% of the time. Jesus did this, He remained sinless throughout His life. He was tempted, and could have sinned, He knows how it feels to be tempted, He was human.

I don’t believe Jesus could have sinned because of who He was though. If Jesus did His own human will and not the will of the Father (that alone would have been a sin), but He also would not have been able to avoid temptation of His own human merit.

When Jesus was tempted, what did He do? Did He say “I am Jesus, back away from me, I have powers”? No. He used the scriptures inspired by His Father. I am also willing to bet He prayed that morning and received His daily bread from the Father. He was probably in a pray without ceasing meditation with the holy Spirit, who helped Him as well. That is how He didn’t sin, not of His human strength, but the strength of God through Him.

So if even the Son of God cannot not sin on His own human merit, why do we thing we could ever? The only way to not sin is through the strength of God, which is only now received after the atoning and reconciling death of Jesus, as we are given the Holy Spirit. We can now through the strength of God, no longer sin. That wouldn’t make us perfect, as we still have sinned in the past and needed reconciliation. And it is not easy, and I don’t know anyone who succeeds in this. But why would you believe that through the new birth in God, that we can not no longer sin? Jesus conquered death, He gave us the Spirit to help us. Clearly we are so messed up, even a life time of learning about God and growing and praying, it is still a very slow sanctification process that might never be attained. But if it was attained, it would not be from our own strength.

So Jesus was capable of sinning and would have sinned if not from the help of God as Jesus was 100% human.

Where Jesus was 100% God, was that he could still be praised. Only God deserved praise, and Jesus accepted praise. Though Jesus always returned the glory to the Father. So when you praised Jesus, it was like praising royalty. When you praise royalty, the king is ultimately praised. Jesus was 100% royal or God in his blood/heritage/lineage. Jesus also forgave since, which only God can do, He was 100% God in his authority. He had royal or God authority to forgive sin. As far as the other miracles, there are no verses ( I am aware of) that says He did it of His own power, as humans don’t have power. What Humans did have, was authority (if God decided to give them authority) He gave Moses authority over the seas when he parted them, He gave Jesus authority of the seas and winds when He calmed them. He gave some of Jesus’ disciples authority over spirits and sicknesses. Though since only Jesus had God lineage, only Jesus received authority to forgive sins.
Matt 28:18 T"hen Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. "

Now that I have clarified that and categorized that, can you agree with all/most of what I say?

If not, that is ok. You have spoken truths of the important things. It is ok to disagree with less important things.

Claiming that I did not read something, just because I am not coming to the same conclusion you are is insulting and unnecessary. But perhaps that was a rhetorical statement made in frustration?

I just enjoy to understand God more clearly and thoroughly, which allow me to praise Him more deeply. But know I don’t just go along with a doctrine because it is in a denomination or what I have always been told. If I can’t see scripture/logic supporting it, I will try my best to get to the truth. But living it is more important than just knowing it, and far more difficult. My thoughts I have now did not come from me sitting down one day and coming up with this, nor from reading the Bible once and setting my thoughts in stone. I like to be challenged and learn and grow and develope a better understanding of God So if I am frustrating so much you are causing you to resort to anger/insults, please let me know and I will stop responding.

God bless.

Very cool, thanks for sharing that.

(Edward Miller) #31

That is the mystery of the Christian faith. Usually, 100% is 100%;however, if one is a true Christian, one knows that Jesus was not the usual being. He was 100% God and 100% man. You cannot judge Jesus as the regular being. Otherwise, he would be no more than we are and could not bring salvation. If you look near the top of this forum, I was the first to bring up Psalm 22. I was trying to get everyone to read it to understand about Jesus and his death and its purpose. It is an exact description of the day of his death. Mark 13:32 expresses clearly what I said of the two natures. The human nature did not know when the Second Coming was to be; however, the Divine nature knew and would not tell. Remember that Jesus said that The Father and I are one. To say that God doesn’t know something is to make Him less than He is. The Father knew because Jesus said so. However, Jesus had the Divine nature and the Divine nature had to know. This is called Orthodox Christianity. To believe otherwise is heterodox belief. Dr. McVey is not an Orthodox Christian. You will need to do some research on him. As for the church I attend, I am a Southern Baptist Deacon and part time pastor. I was also elected by the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church as a local pastor. I have also been a speaker in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I would say that I have an open mind. H. Spencer was also right to use Psalm 22. I might mention that there is much prophecy in the Psalms. Also, please read John 20 beginning with Jesus’ appearance and where he was speaking with Thomas. What does Thomas say? He calls Jesus Lord and God. If Jesus were not also 100% God, Thomas would have been a heretic. The Old Testament did say: The LORD, our God, is one Lord. LORD means Jahweh and the other Lord means Adonai. You will need to know where that is. Therefore, use a Bible Concordance. May God bless you. Jesus does say in John’s Gospel that the Father and I are one. You will need to locate that. Take care:grinning: I also recommend Psalm 16. Also, I would recommend the NIV translation of the Bible.

Edward Miller, MA in Divinity

(Robin) #32

OK, “Still learning”…I think you have worn out a few post-ers here. I will accept your acknowledgement that you are not the most articulate of online scribblers. You may want to re-think, in that case, where you go for information. You already offended, perplexed, wore out a good number of people by seeming to ignore important points, saying one thing in one post and then re-defining them elsewhere. No one here knows you. So when you say, as you have said, that you may contradict yourself but be patient, or that the thing is hard to explain — it could come off as snobbish, as in “You—lowly you — are intellectually inferior to I who comprehend everything.”

I am not saying that you believe this, but I think you are better of having this sort of conversation in a setting where you can be better comprehended. Some people are great public speakers and they cannot write worth a darn. I have known a few and ended up writing letters and papers for them. That is — public speaking is a different skill from being fluid with the written word.,

As for the rest of all this, I think your many many many questions probably show an inquisitive mind. When I first started back to religion in general (Christianity in particular), I offended a whole lot of people with my nitpicking at times…

In other words, do what you need to do — i.e., read widely in the subject that interests you (not just grabbing off the Internet — I am somewhat of a snob about the Internet), go to seminars and conferences (but do your homework, do not just believe every archaeologist or anthropologist you hear — they too have biases!!), and whatever else fits your personality. You know what that is.

You have asked enough here of people and seemingly not accepted it – or argued all over the place – or disagreed with it without explaining why.

As for the “100% human” and “100% God” issue which you mentioned — I do not want to get into this too much with you. However, I was not giving you a cookbook recipe — as in, “add one cup of flour and one cup of sugar and …”. My statement meant that Jesus was fully both — that is, both God and man in a way that you and I cannot be. What He was on earth was “the personal embodiment and revelation OF the one true god” — as N.T. Wright puts it in one of his many books.

Let’s have no more debates or hair-spliting on that. As I said from the start, the complex nature of God has been discussed for millennia… Remember in Genesis 1 —"God [plural Hebrew noun] created [singular Hebrew verb}…The discussion got even hotter after Daniel wrote of his “son of man” revelation — followed a few centuries later by a couple intertestamental boosks, 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra…And yes I know. The last two books are not in most canons. I am just saying that the discussion of the debate over the nature of this monotheistic God goes way back.

I look at it this way…I have worked with a lot of kindergarteners over the years. This means that I have heard some “Very Grand Pronouncements” by little people who are just as sure of themselves as you and I are of ourselves. They are QUITE quite sure and …frequently QUITE quite wrong. Why? Because they are five, that is why!! They have only been around a few short years and they have travelled maybe two blocks from home their entire lives. They are limited in wisdom and experience…and they do not know it.

So let that be a parable about our understanding of how the Creator of the Universe could be both God and man at one and the same time. That is: you and I are kindergarteners in God’s eyes. Our level of knowledge is small but our arrogance at times is …well…So: God is complex. As Polkinghorne said in one of his books, there is a spirit of cooperation in many aspects of the elements of the universe — and then he gives examples from the scientific fields he is acquainted with. This spirit of cooperation is, to him, illustrative of the Three-in-One God.

So let us be done with that subject…please…

As I said, you need to take this discussion to a church Bible study…to your pastor…to some place where you communicate better and can ask the questions you want to ask and be understood. There is a place that is just right for you, and maybe it is not here.

(Edward Miller) #33

That is a good response, Bluebird. God bless and I hope he will take your advice.


I think that explains a lot. Not in a condescending way. I would guess that many come to you for answers, not necessarily to wrestle over God, but to hear what the pastor’s advice is. And it is very hard to be open minded when you have to preach on things, you can’t change your doctrine and you are kind of “stuck” in a denominational doctrine that you must uphold.

Nor do I think your academic quests are really that important, you do much more important things, You have a flock to shepherd, and you are living the important truths and trying to build strong roots in them.

Thank you for clarifying or expanding on that for me, that was what I was asking. That is so much more useful than saying “read this verse, if you don’t know what it means, I cannot go any further with you”.

I now see how you were interpreting that. I can see your views and agree with you there, and it appears to me that as I suspected that it was all a matter of semantics.

I used the term biology for lack of a better term, but you used nature. A human nature, and a God nature. I called it human biology and a God blood/lineage. I was referring to two natures.basically.

I am not sure I agree with that, but I don’t want to go further off topic on that one. I think it is more accurate to say that His ways are higher than ours, and no one know what God knows.

Again, I don’t denominate myself or others. I don’t believe give allegiance to a doctrine and must follow all precepts or none. Some things of Orthodox I might believe, some of baptist, some Catholic, some Methodist, some Calvinist ect. I don’t believe in predestination, but I will not refuse to listen to someone who does, or think their argument for a different topic has no Merritt because they are a Calvinist. If you can explain logically to me where scripture says something and that agrees with the main theme and narrative of the Bible, I might adopt those beliefs. The arm is no better than the leg and so forth, we all have strengths and weaknesses and similarities and different communities that can all glorify God in many diverse ways.

We can debate and learn more about God, but we are all children of God, by the grace of God, through Jesus, living for the glory of God and there is no room for anger or bitterness towards one another.

That wasn’t my purpose, sorry for that. I am not sure where I attacked or offended anyone?

Also not my intent, as I am sure you didn’t address all my points either. Mostly because it is just overwhelming amount of info, and I have it coming from 2, not just one.

That isn’t my intent at all. It is more of like, I can’t get the point across concisely, so follow me till the end. You need to see my whole story to understand my details. Like the Bible as a whole needs to be understood before you can understand the details. It can appear to contradict, but when you read it through the lens of a loving God who is just and merciful, it can bring understanding and reveal there is no contradiction.

Example, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” But then we see Jesus forgive people and there is no blood. At surface level it appears to contradict, but in reality it isn’t.

You are definitely not intellectually inferior. I anything, I am, and that is why I have to go through such a long diatribe and use analogies to attempt to explain how I understand something. That is one reason for my user name. I am hoping for extended grace as I am far intellectually inferior to many of those on this forum.

However I don’t think that means i can say nothing correct, or have a proper understanding of something either.

I kind of wish you would communicate to me that way, get into it, tell me details, examples, analogies, give me your bigger picture narrative. No worries offending me, my foundation is in God, not what man thinks of me… Feel free to dumb it down and assume things of me and answer hypothetical questions to further demonstrate your point.

As hard as it may be to believe, I am a much worse speaker. HA ha. That and I have a difficult time finding a place where there are highly educated folks or folks with much experience, or open minded folks to discuss things with. That and I travel a lot, so most of my time on here is away from home, where the internet is plenty. I am a huge fan of N.T Wright and John Walton, who are also called heretics by some people.

Many would just write me off as a heretic, say they will pray for me. My iron will never get sharpened that way, I need opposition to sharpen me.

If anyone is condescending, it would be that comment there. Ha ha, but its all good.

I use this analogy often. Like explaining linear algebra to a 1st grader, it seems like utter nonsense to them.

I know that God’s ways are higher than mine, and I don’t ever want to question his ways nor do they need to be explained either, but we must trust in Him. However, I want to ensure that I am understanding.interpreting His ways properly too. I don’t want to read something literal and something that isn’t very logical to me, and instead of investigating it further, say, oh well, His ways are higher.

Like being a flat earther or a YEC, I am not going to believe that just because it is illogical according to science so it must be correct. It may or may not be, but with the knowledge I have in science and in Biblical literature, I see EC to be much more logical and better glorifies God. I am glad I learned about it for that reason.

His ways are higher, but that doesn’t mean the most illogical interpretation must be correct then either.

No problem, it seems we agreed with each other all along, we just used different terminology. But I like your explanations better, so I have now adopted that to my understandings.

But I still don’t understand what you mean about God cannot look upon sin, nor agree with you there. But that is fine if you don’t want to discuss that anymore either.

Ouch. Well, at least that is speaking with grace, and not outright saying, “get out of here, you are inferior to us”, and then the other guy come in and say, “yea, I hope he leaves, he doesn’t belong”. I have not had this bad reception from many of the other members here. But I have learned a great deal you two and from the members here, and I plan on sticking around, feel free to ignore my posts or block them/me if you are able.

Thanks for the exchange. God bless.

(Edward Miller) #35

What is your academic background [content removed by moderator]? At least, I am a BA in Germanic Studies and an MA in Divinity, and I also studied Business Administration. I always try to be polite and Christian to people. [content removed by moderator] Again, this is the last time that I will respond. Circular debates lead nowhere. I feel we should part in peace as Jesus would have us to do. No one was trying to tell you to get out of here. It is just if this center of information is not helping you, perhaps other sources on this blog might help. I feel personally that a good Bible preaching church is what you need. It can be Roman Catholic or traditional Protestant, but you may need to select one. If you already have one, seek out your pastor. I truly believe that a face to face conversation would be better for you. There is no shame in doing that. I pray to God through Jesus the Son that He will bring you peace.

(Robin) #36

Still Learning…For one example of the concept of God not being able to look upon sin, re-read my comments in an earlier posting about the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies once a year…I believe it is in a posting I made yesterday.

Blessings to you and I am glad that you are seeking information on these things. But I do think that a face to face with a pastor or in a church Bible study will be more helpful to you in the long run…Again, it is great that you are seeking things out and “testing the spirits” in your own way.

Have a great week…

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #37

If God cannot look and will not look at sin in any way, than God cannot look at me and understand me. No doubt it hurts God to see how we hurt others and hurt ourselves, and contaminate our world, but God cares about us and loves. God bears that suffering for our sake. God does not have to suffer, but God does so for us.

Jesus prayed to the Father, “Let this pass, but if it be Your Will…” Jesus did not have to die. Jesus did not have to suffer for our sins, but He did. The way He suffered was to experience separation from the Father and the human world, which is the product of Sin.

Jesus could not die, because He was God. God cannot die, but because He was human He took on Himself the sin of humankind, which made Him mortal. The Bible seems to indicate He died not as the result of the crucifixion, but as the result of a heart attack.

(Edward Miller) #38

I can see your point, Roger. I may not agree totally; however, I certainly do see your point. You are a wise gentleman and always polite. God bless you, your family, and your church. I bet it serves God well.

(Edward Miller) #39

A theologian at Palmer Theological Seminary (American Baptist Church) would disagree. He said that Christians can honestly say that God did die because Jesus died and he was both God and man. His name is Professor Phillip Cary, MA in Philosophy and PhD in Philosophy and Religious Studies at Yale University. I would like for you and him to have a debate on BioLogos. Remember, Jesus was God the Son and Son of Man. These two natures were united until the spirit of Jesus (human spirit or Divine) went to the Father who has never died. However, God the Son did and the Father raised the human body with the spirit in it. Was it his human spirit or also the Divine Spirit. Remember that Jesus said that the Father and I are one. To see me is to see the Father. Yet, one also saw the man Jesus. Perhaps you should debate this with Dr. Cary at Eastern University, Palmer Theological Seminary. Palmer used to carry the name Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in St Davids, Pa. Oh, the cross was the primary cause of death. Any possible heart attack would have been a secondary cause.

@Jon_Garvey: Hello there!

I would like to hear your opinion, Jon. God bless.

(Robin) #40

Roger…Interesting post. But a little too much hair splitting going on. As to your last sentence re the cause of death: crucifixion was a really effective killer. Yes, the “latest theory” is that the loud cry Jesus uttered on the cross was due to a pulmonary embolism or cardiac arrhythmia (sp) or some other sudden extreme form of cardiac rupture — and that he possibly inherited a condition common to Jewish people in that part of the Galilee region…Or the cry could have meant something else …There WAS something about His death that caught the attention of that centurion, after all…But all this — cardiac rupture or etc — would not have occurred save for the stress of the crucifixion experience, which was designed to kill. The biblical text is open to lots of speculation in regards to the loud cry and other things…But He was, after all, on a cross — exposed to the 80 or so -degree day and the consequences of the beating, the nails and the inability to breathe well and bleeding and multiple other things…

It’s fun to speculate. but the reason we will never know for sure (beyond the fact of the crucifixion itself – which does have historic attestation ) is because…something happened to the body over he next couple days.

And that is the exciting part!!!

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #41

John 19:31-34 (NIV2011)
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Robin, Thank you for your response.

To be sure it is the Resurrection that gives the full meaning to the Crucifixion, but the Bible does show that Christians were intent in demonstrating that Jesus really died on the Cross.

What I was focusing on was the report that water and blood flowed from His side. Now I expect that there is a spiritual reason why this fact was reported, but I am told (I am not a physician) that this could have indicated death by heart attack.

Certainly I would never deny the responsibility of the sinners of His day for putting Him on the Cross, I still think that the ultimate responsibility for His death belongs the sinners of all time, including myself, for having Him pay the terrible price for our sin.

Through love Jesus laid aside His life for us. It was not humans or the power of evil that took it from Him.