Search results

I'll not go point-by point, but address your first and last points about the definition of "new". So, I think I gave you a precise definition, by example, of "new". Bricks are not new, Legos are (a "new" type of brick). Words and notes are not new, but the patterns of words and notes together...

Yet I built a new house. The concept of a house is not new, but each house is new. Sometimes concepts that are not necessarily new are realized fir the first time, like airplanes. The concept of flying is not new, but powered human flight put it in practice. Each new airplane design is something...

Yes, but God didn't design and build everything that might be built with His Lego-atoms. He didn't already have in His store-houses of snow every snow fort or snowman every child would fashion. God might have conceived of a building system for kids like Legos, but a man invented that particular...

Yes, just like building a bridge is a warping of what exists. It is designed to fulfill a purpose using materials God made available. Nuclear bombs are a warping of what exists, designed to fulfill a purpose using materials God made available. I don't think Tacoma Narrows Bridge was an entity...

I've talked to @Lon about that one before, but he includes lying as privation, or lack of good, if I understand him correctly. I'm not sure how he justifies that as "not in His being" any more than other things one might do. I.e., I think if whatever is in His being does sinful acts, then those...

I think you are telling us something God can't do, is that correct? Are you now saying that God can't create a world where it is possible to do something outside of His being? (I'm not sure what you mean there, so if there's a word missing, please correct your quote for me.) Which, I think, is...

"Sovereign" doesn't seem to have either an "omnipotence" meaning (your first option) or a "knowledge" meaning (your third option), as far as I can tell. I agree that the Reformers used it to mean meticulous control, but I don't see how it means that in any biblical usage (though it isn't a...

Thanks for pointing that out. @Ps82, is that how you see that verse? I noticed you didn't address my assertion that Jesus tells us the passage refers to men as "gods" and God doing the speaking. Would you like to now? Yes, that seems disingenuous, doesn't it. That's a common problem around here.

The problem as I see it is that you are all over the place, so you are having a hard time focusing on the topic you say you are trying to address. But I think the reason you are all over the place is that you are shoe-horning all kinds of speculation into scripture where it doesn't fit--without...

That's an interesting idea, but I don't know if you could back it up with scripture, any more than I could refute it with scripture. Death was a result of sin, but Jesus still died, so I don't see how the corruption of the body is any different. I wasn't trying to say it was random or...

I think it is mainly saying that He could die, and His body could decay. He was resurrected before the decay happened. Here's another verse: 2 Peter 1:4 NKJV — by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature...

Seems like we need to discuss Ps 82 in depth, then. Let's start, counterintuitively, with vs 7: Psalm 82:7 NKJV — But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.” This indeed makes it seem like someone other than mere men are being addressed. So move up to vs 6: Psalm 82:6 NKJV —...

I don't disagree with you that Jesus didn't see corruption, as David did. My point was that He was subject to (capable of experiencing) corruption and weak--because He became a human being. Those are human characteristics, not divine ones. Thus Jesus's godly qualities are at the very least...

I guess what you are suggesting is that Adam was "dead", so it excludes him already. I don't think Adam was dead yet. In terms of physical death, he's not dead. In terms if separation from God, he hadn't left the garden yet, God was right there. I just don't see why they would be called sons...

A distinction suggests the two are compatible, i.e., not contradictory. "Mortal" is contradictory to "immortal".

Agreed Agreed, but that cements my point, that He was at one time mortal, despite being immortal at the same time. Acts 13:34 KJV — And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Can...

Can you list the attributes of each nature and see if he had both? Divine: immortal Human: mortal Divine: all powerful Human: weak and subject to corruption Etc. Can a person be both at the same time?

Or Paul: 2 Thessalonians 1:11 KJV — Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

Christians have a new nature (spirit) and an old nature (flesh). We are assured that the old is passed away, and we are new creatures, yet something of the old remains to be dwelt with, as we all recognize. Our natures are in conflict, as Paul tells us in Rom 7, but Jesus's natures were not...

Good article, Clete. I have a question. Why do you feel that a glorified body is of more consequence than a mortal body? It seems His glorification was a partial changing back to what He was before His incarnation. In that sense, I feel like His incarnation to a mortal body was the bigger change...