Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"? (page 11)

Mondo1

The problem with calling him God ontologically is that the Bible is clear in that the deity Christ possessed is based upon the Father choosing for him to possess it. (Col. 1:19; 2:9) One might say that he is ontologically a god because of the Father giving him his deity, but not God. The problem is also that "God" is used as a quazi-proper name in Scripture, and when it is used in such a way it describes the Father, the one true (alhqinos) God, which Jesus is not.

ellderwho

His person. His consciousness. His life.

So by this, how could he not have a dual nature? His person is a god, he is conscious as a god, he is a god, by your terms. And this you'll agree was in Marys womb?

Deputy Dog

Mondo

His person. His consciousness. His life. This is what came down. The means of existence within which this existed changed.

Ok then. Jesus was a man with the "person" and the "consciousness" and the "life" force of an angel. That sure does sound like an angel/human combination to me.

LittleToe

I missed you guys. I hope you'll post a summary of the Convention for all us stop-at-homes.

The exam went as well as could be expected, for a stinker. I hope I scrape a pass, but I'm not expecting high marks, and wont get my results for another two months

I never thought I'd be playing catch-up with my education at my age
Ah well, better late than never!

Mondo:
First of all, let me reiterate that I'm in no way suggesting that the Son is the Father. I'm no Modalist.

The problem with calling him God ontologically is that the Bible is clear in that the deity Christ possessed is based upon the Father choosing for him to possess it.

But can I just affirm that you do accept that he now possesses this "Godship"?

Mondo1

I guess that depends on how you wish to define nature, but it is not how I define it and that does not fit the Trinitarian sense.

Mondo1

Sure. He absolutely now possesses it.

LittleToe

Ok, so far so good. I'm good with that, though it's not the entirety of my personal belief.

May I ask an associated question? What's your understanding of the concept of "eternity"? Is it subject to "time" as we know it?

Mondo1

I could only speculate... so why bother? I simply know that eternity is without end.

LittleToe

It's of importance since this thread concerns the order of things.

In "time" we are aware of the order of things second by second, and hence we can distinguish one thing as having occured first, and another thing as having occurred second, etc.

Does "eternity" have that property do you think, or does it transcend time?

I ask because we have someone refered to as "the lamb slain before the founding of the world", and yet the physical slaying didn't occur until about 2,000 years ago. Does this tell us something about eternity, if time is something that was created with the founding of the world?

ellderwho

mondo1, are we ducking the issue? Maybe Deputy Dog is on to something.

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

Share this