PSacramento....And in ch. 12 of Revelation, Michael and the messiah child (in a mythological scene with curious parallels to Matthew 1-3, the Apocalypse of Adam, Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 19, and the Apollo-Leto and Horus-Isis myths) appear as distinct figures as well, although here the possibly composite nature of the text mitigates against laying much stress on this example.
The Son in two persons
by Deputy Dog 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
jonathan dough
Reniaa said:
"10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[a] our sins"
"here the bible is clearly saying it is the one that is sent down from God that dies. how does the hypostactic argument address that?"
REPLY: That is not what 1 John 4:10 says at all.
1 John 4:10 is referring to the flesh, the creature who bled on the cross. The preincarnate Word, God the Son, did not bleed on the cross. It was not the flesh who was "sent down." Flesh and blood cannot inhabit the heavenly realms. Galatians 4:4 makes this clear for it says "... God sent forth his son, born of woman ... to redeem those ...." It means that God sent the preincarnate Word, who then became incarnate, becoming a divine person who assumed a human nature, and it was the created humanity (born of woman) that died on the cross, not God the Son of the God-man, who always remained fully God, though with a veiled glory.
The JWs are blatently hypocritical in their analysis because if that were the case (i.e., that it was the preincarnate Sprit the Word the Son that was the sacrifice) then by logical extension it was the spirit "angel Michael" (the same Son, the Word) who was nailed to the cross and died according to JW lore.
But they can't have it both ways because that angel did not exist on earth because they teach that Jesus was "a man, nothing more or less," and therefore he had ceased being an angel, obviously, and it wasn't the preincarnate "angel sent by God" (the son) who died. Therefore, 1 John 4:10 must refer to the creature, the incarnate Word even under their theory. It does not mean that the Spirit God the Son was the sacrifice that bled on the cross.
This makes perfect sense in light of the fact that Jesus said He would resurrect Himself which He could not have done had the God of the God-man died or been vanquished. It also comports with the tremendous weight of proof texts that establish that Jesus was and is God. For more information, go here:
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#22
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
Just to clarify things, a literal translation of 1 John 4:10 reads: God "... sent His Son to be a propitiation relating to our sins."
JD II -
isaacaustin
thank you JD
-
PSacramento
Leolaia,
Interesting re: chapter 12 in Revelation, you have mail by the way :)
-
jonathan dough
DD said "To simplify this, think of it this way. One Son in two persons= One life force in Two persons"
REPLY: No disrespect intended because I also am a firm believer in the H. union but which religious denomination teaches "one son in two persons?" Do you have any source material or is this something you came up with on your own because according to basic encyclopedic research, He is not really two persons; that is not what God-man means. Rather, it is one person with a divine and human nature, a divine person who assumed a human nature, not two persons. Just trying to understand you, that's all. Are you saying that mainstream Christianity has got it wrong? Others have said it better than me:
"Our faith in Christ, the God-man, supposes that his humanity is not a human person (the mystery). For if it were, and if there were a duality of persons in Christ, then the Divine Person would not really be man but only united with a man; Christ would not be what our faith says he is.” (ibid., 937)"
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#5
JD II
-
PSacramento
RE: Probitation:
Hilasmos: an appeasing, a means of appeasing.
-
Deputy Dog
JD
I agree with you.
No disrespect intended because I also am a firm believer in the H. union but which religious denomination teaches "one son in two persons?"
The WT is the only one I know of. As I've said over and over, This thread is NOT about Christian doctrine.
I do not want to see any more long post anout the Trinity.
-
Spike Tassel
The Trinity is THE place where the Son in two persons idea really resides, as this Topic has abundantly proven, to both Reniaa and myself.
-
isaacaustin
elaborate please
-
Deputy Dog
Spike
I got it from the WT.