Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

One point to make, you gave a list of those things he wasn't able to do - e.g. he didn't know who touched him - and yet, in Matthew 9 v 4 we read:

quote:

---

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

---

It looks like he knew what people thought.
He knew, furthermore, who would betray him.

So maybe he knew more than a normal man would know?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Mr picky doesn't like the way Jesus does his miracles, making up problems. Seems easy to me that the blind man had his eyes fixed, possibly even replaced, and vision fixed next. Sort of like getting a car to run, then tuning it up.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

---

I was heading you off at the pass, should you try the same approach others have used when the subject of Jesus being vague pops up. Perhaps not fair to you, I know. Responding to all as I can find the time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

---

I was heading you off at the pass, should you try the same approach others have used when the subject of Jesus being vague pops up. Perhaps not fair to you, I know. Responding to all as I can find the time.

---

But that's not my argument-- at all. I'm not suggesting Jesus was "vague". In fact, my argument is specifically that Jesus was quite explicit (I even used that word) in saying "I can only do what the Father enables me to do" or "I only know what the Father has revealed to me". At the same time he was quite explicit about the unity of the Trinity-- "I and the Father or one", "If you see me, you have seen the Father." I am not arguing that this is "nonsense", although I would of course acknowledge there is a bit of mystery inherent in anything that is so transcendent, so beyond our material universe.

Again, if the post in question was directed toward me I'm not sure AT ALL how it relates to what I am saying, or really if you are tracking at all with the argument I am making. In fact, I'm not sure WHO the post could be directed toward because I don't see anyone here who is arguing in those terms. Yet you seemed to be setting it up as a false binary-- "either you think of Jesus as I do ("playacting") or you think Jesus' words are 'nonsense'". That is a false binary as obviously there are many other options. At least 4 or 5 other options have been argued on this thread-- yet I can't recall anyone arguing for the "nonsense" proposition (OK, maybe Martin... but I'm never quite sure what Martin is arguing...)

Let's stick to the arguments real posters on this thread are making, shall we? Rather than inventing imaginary opponents? The waters are muddy enough when we're talking about the Trinity w/o bringing in a bunch of strawmen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

I would also say the temptations read like a poetic depiction of kenosis itself-- it is an acting out, a living representation, of the choice to "empty himself".

---

quote:

---

I would agree with all those as defining qualities. Note that none involve the "omnis".

---

quote:

---

I'm not as eager as you to include "wrath",

---

quote:

---

But that seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. Once you begin saying "well, yes, Jesus did say/do X, but he didn't really mean it, he was just pretending..." I think you've undermined the whole gospel record. But that seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. Once you begin saying "well, yes, Jesus did say/do X, but he didn't really mean it, he was just pretending..." I think you've undermined the whole gospel record.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.

---

As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position.

---

quote:

---

Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

---

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

---

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

---

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

---

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course not, you'll say, there are 'dispensations'. No?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Martin is jousting at Jamat, Cliffdweller. Jamat is a dispensationalist.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Martin is jousting at Jamat, Cliffdweller. Jamat is a dispensationalist.

---

Ah, yes, that fits.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Aijalon:

Away from office, posting on iPad, making copy feature difficult to use. But your last post really suggests you are Not following my argument for whatever reason. So, just to get us on the same page.

1. Nope. I never said Satan wanted Jesus to call on the Father during his temptation. Nope. Didn't say that, doesn't make any sense

2. Nope. I never said Jesus retained the omnis in his earthly incarnation

3. Think "wrath" is a pretty crappy place to begin talking about a God. Hard to imagine a worse starting point. Do you find that approach successful-- ever???

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.

---

As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position.

---

The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation is that Jesus was a regular human being.
There's a difference between not mentioning something and actively behaving insincerely.
It's one thing not to volunteer the information that you're an orphan unasked and another thing to carry on a pretend phone call to your father.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

---

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.

---

Batman's (God's) identity was never understood to be multi-person by his audience. (Robin, in this instance, would be a messenger, not part of the trinity).

Yes, as you say. It could have been less awkward to say that Jesus was either "of one mind" or "are one and the same". but he avoided both of those options. Rather, being obscure - and clearly intentionally, for it was definitely in his power to be crystal clear.

you also cleverly avoided my point, which rests on the fact that God's identity is indistinguishable - as one - to the disciples. This is the critical thing modern notions of the trinity fail on as I see, the context issue. Avoiding the context and concentrating on the scripted hollow text itself, and only that. Jesus said in round-about ways, he and God are indistinguishable - in their essence in mind and will, the disciples understood that toward the end. There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer - and revelation by the hearer is the method of teaching - that Jesus is a different person. Rather, they hearers begin with the idea of Jesus as a separate person, and Jesus tries to UNDO that concept.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Aijalon:

Away from office, posting on iPad, making copy feature difficult to use. But your last post really suggests you are Not following my argument for whatever reason. So, just to get us on the same page.

1. Nope. I never said Satan wanted Jesus to call on the Father during his temptation. Nope. Didn't say that, doesn't make any sense

---

I suppose you're right, not following some of the things you're saying.

1. I was trying to respond to your assertion that the temptation of Jesus was a display of kenosis itself. Assertion was perceived on my end to mean something toward the threeness/Trinity of God's person. Please recall I'm not arguing for or against Kensis by itself, only as far as it may relate to triune persons. It could be, maybe I'm wrong here too, that to you Jesus being an individual apart from the Father is such a foregone conclusion, that you're not able to see where I'm coming from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

2. Nope. I never said Jesus retained the omnis in his earthly incarnation

---

2. YOu had said >> To some degree it's a semantic difference-- both of us agree that the pre- and post-incarnation Christ holds the "omnis". Both of us agree that "giving them up" was a voluntary action. So really it's a question of whether he retained the ability to do a "backsies" while on earth.
I was a little confused by this, but thought that we may simply have different lists of "omnis" and that you were exploring omnis in a way obscure to me. Perhaps you meant to say "post Ascension". In any case, moving on - that's cleared up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

3. Think "wrath" is a pretty crappy place to begin talking about a God. Hard to imagine a worse starting point. Do you find that approach successful-- ever???

---

3. Your third point is just "stick in the mud" talk, no substance there, other than irreverence. You may believe in a teddy bear or boyfriend/girlfriend God if you like.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a difference between not mentioning something and actively behaving insincerely.
It's one thing not to volunteer the information that you're an orphan unasked and another thing to carry on a pretend phone call to your father.

---

To be obscure is not to be disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

Jesus never pretended to be something OTHER than who he truly is, rather he directed his followers to look beyond him toward heaven. It was not for simple sake of being confusing, there was a purpose. Why would confusion on the part of the listener necessitate Jesus being disingenuous for fake, it' just doesn't equate.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

---

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.

---

Batman's (God's) identity was never understood to be multi-person by his audience. (Robin, in this instance, would be a messenger, not part of the trinity).

---

quote:

---

you also cleverly avoided my point, which rests on the fact that God's identity is indistinguishable - as one - to the disciples.

---

quote:

---

This is the critical thing modern notions of the trinity fail on as I see, the context issue. Jesus said in round-about ways, he and God are indistinguishable - in their essence in mind and will, the disciples understood that toward the end. There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer - and revelation by the hearer is the method of teaching - that Jesus is a different person. Rather, they hearers begin with the idea of Jesus as a separate person, and Jesus tries to UNDO that concept.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

(Originally posted by Aijalon:) This is the critical thing modern notions of the trinity fail on as I see, the context issue. Jesus said in round-about ways, he and God are indistinguishable - in their essence in mind and will, the disciples understood that toward the end. There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer - and revelation by the hearer is the method of teaching - that Jesus is a different person. Rather, they hearers begin with the idea of Jesus as a separate person, and Jesus tries to UNDO that concept.

---

The start of this paragraph seems to me to be saying, 'any argument that uses the word 'context' must be true, I've used the word 'context', my argument must be true'.
The middle of this paragraph about revelation and teaching and hearing is word salad. In so far as there are gleams of sense in it, they aren't true.
The final sentence makes sense but doesn't follow from anything you've said.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.

---

That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.

No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.

So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".

But today you and I pray to Jesus Christ. The puzzle is complete.

As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you. But just throw out crass criticism, I see the exit sign, I'll just leave so you may continue to discuss the pointless answers to the pointless question of whether Jesus is #1/#2or#3 in the Trinity.

[ 20. June 2017, 20:29: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.

---

That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.

---

quote:

---

No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.

---

quote:

---

So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".

---

quote:

---

As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you.

---

quote:

---

There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a lot of crunching in this thread, but it isn't really salad. It's nuts.

I think pizza works better than salad actually. God is the crust, the Holy Spirit is the cheese and Jesus is the sauce. Though if Christ is the True Foundation perhaps he's the crust. And maybe God's the Big Cheese; admittedly some cheeses are too strong for my taste. But I think the HS is definitely the sauce, I don't want very much, it mustn't be too spicy and there mustn't be too much.

The problem with pizza is that weirdos put things like pineapple on it. Like my godless Pentecostal pineappling sister. Probably Presbyterians and Lutherans etc put other odd things on their's. I know there's definitely too much oregano sometimes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Pizzarianism, Pizzapneumatomachianism, Pizzamonarchianism, Pizzasabellianism at least.

---

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.

---

That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.

---

Has anyone ever successfully taught you algebra?
This has not got anything to do with good teaching practice. But really I think your analogy is so out of alignment with the question of Jesus praying to the Father that it is impossible for me to address it at all.

quote:

---

No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.

---

The picture won't come together if you wait.
You're talking as if the person who sets the puzzle solves it while the puzzle-solver watches. That's not how puzzles work.

quote:

---

So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".

---

We're not talking about whom Jesus tells the disciples to pray to. We're talking about whom Jesus prays to when he's not telling the disciples
that he's giving them instructions.

This would be like an algebra teacher telling the class that quadratics only have one solution.

quote:

---

As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you.

---

My point was that I couldn't address anything directly. You didn't care enough to write anything that could be directly addressed.

Consider: you wrote:

quote:

---

There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer

---

People hearing don't reveal anything. Things are revealed to hearers, not by hearers. Did you mean, "There is no revelation by Jesus to any hearer"? I don't know, and why should I care when you clearly don't care enough to make it clear.
You're right: nothing said was that hard. It was that sloppy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.

---

That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.

---

Has anyone ever successfully taught you algebra?
This has not got anything to do with good teaching practice. But really I think your analogy is so out of alignment with the question of Jesus praying to the Father that it is impossible for me to address it at all.

quote:

---

No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.

---

The picture won't come together if you wait.
You're talking as if the person who sets the puzzle solves it while the puzzle-solver watches. That's not how puzzles work.

quote:

---

So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".

---

We're not talking about whom Jesus tells the disciples to pray to. We're talking about whom Jesus prays to when he's not telling the disciples
that he's giving them instructions.

This would be like an algebra teacher telling the class that quadratics only have one solution.

quote:

---

As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you.

---

My point was that I couldn't address anything directly. You didn't care enough to write anything that could be directly addressed.

Consider: you wrote:

quote:

---

There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer

---

People hearing don't reveal anything. Things are revealed to hearers, not by hearers. Did you mean, "There is no revelation by Jesus to any hearer"? I don't know, and why should I care when you clearly don't care enough to make it clear.
You're right: nothing said was that hard. It was that sloppy.

---

You don't really seem serious about anything but dissecting hairs. The point of the analogy is to -in general- refute your false statement. You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you. "Reasonable" does not equate to proof of your position. I'm trying to tell you the storyline shows Jesus leading people toward an UNreasonable conclusion.

Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

In addition, hearing is instructive. TBH I feel that you are just playing hard to get, so as to make it seem my point is stupid, make me repeat myself in different ways so you can then mince my words, I will get in the dirt and explain it even more tediously.

The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.

---