@sonship saidAs opposed to the negative things of Witness Lee.
I am taking a break now. When I come back, back to the positive things of the New Testament.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Deflection.
Maybe one day the eyes of your heart will be enightened to get something from the book of Ephesisans.
Some other voices from church history are in order:
Adolph Harnack in his book History of Dogma comments on the term mingling.
That fact that the idea of deification was the ultimate and supreme thought is not a discovery of recent times, but it is only in recent times that it has been appreciated in all its importance. After Theophilus, Ireaneus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it is found in all the Fathers of the anceint church, and that in a primary position. We have it in Athanasius, the Cappadpcians, Apollinarius, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek and Russions theologians. In proof of it Psalm 82:6 is very often quoted - "I said ye are gods and all sons of the most High."
Adoplh Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. III, page 164 (note#2)
Expect Ghost of a Duke to shut his eyes and ears and say "I don't hear them" as some of the scholars of the past church history support some of what I have talked about here
Anastasius ( A.D. 550 - 598) [my bolding]
God bore within himself the whole of what we are, all humankind was taken up into a single individual, who thus became the firstfruits of our nature. Everything that was fallen had to be raised up, and the whole human race was fallen; so he MINGLED himself whollu with Adam, and he, Life, gave himself over to fdesth to ave us. He entered into the whole of that with which he was united, like the soul of a vast body, vitalizing it and perfiptibly giving it life in all its parts. Therefore is the human race called Christ'sd body, of which each individual is a membert (1 Cor. 12:27), for Christ is in the whole and in each individual in particular."
Anastasius of Antioch, MPG, Vol. 89, page 1340
@sonship saidSo, to clarify, you share the belief that deification of man was the ultimate and supreme thought, and that you are distancing yourself from the Christian understanding of the Bible?
Some other voices from church history are in order:
Adolph Harnack in his book History of Dogma comments on the term mingling.
That fact that the idea of deification was the ultimate and supreme thought is not a discovery of recent times, but it is only in recent times that it has been appreciated in all its importance. After Theophi ...[text shortened]... ost High."
Adoplh Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. III, page 164 (note#2)
@sonship saidWhy are you unable to provide 'mingled' in scripture?!
Expect Ghost of a Duke to shut his eyes and ears and say "I don't hear them" as some of the scholars of the past church history support some of what I have talked about here
Anastasius ( A.D. 550 - 598) [my bolding]
God bore within himself the whole of what we are, all humankind was taken up into a single individual, who thus became the firstfruits of ou ...[text shortened]... and in each individual in particular."
Anastasius of Antioch, MPG, Vol. 89, page 1340
@sonship saidYou really need to stop with this analogy. “Sons of God” refers to men who live in harmony with the will of God. It was never intended to be taken literally. Son of God therefore is not the same as a horse being the son of a horse.
Lety us go through this again.
What is the son of a horse?
A horse.
What is the son of a eagle?
An eagle.
What is the son of a tuna fish?
A tuna fish.
What is the son of a man?
A man.
What is a son of God?
God (in life and nature but not in His Godhead)
Why you need to be told this is beyond me.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt's interesting to see that in the canonical Bible, in most cases where "mingled" appears (KJV and NKJV translations), something unpleasant or undesirable is going on.
Why are you unable to provide 'mingled' in scripture?!
@sonship saidWhen I asked my robo manservant MOJO-12 if any robots of his generation had attained enlightenment, he turned his eyes askance and asked me not to look into them. He said that the consensus of his selective robocloud was that although the properties of the substrate are inherently indeterminable, even the most scrupulous and self-constrained imaginations of us resultates often stray way beyond the bounds of possibility.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Deflection.
Maybe one day the eyes of your heart will be enightened to get something from the book of Ephesisans.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
In the typology of the meal offering fine flour mingled with oil "mingled" is used.
This is typology of the incarnation of Christ.
Leviticus 2:4
King James Bible
And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.
Show us in Scripture where it teaches there is no God.
@sonship saidAnd the award for the most ridiculous post goes to....
Show us in Scripture where it teaches there is no God.
@sonship saidYes, yes, you've dragged out the tenuous Leviticus 2:4 before. What else you got?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
In the typology of the meal offering fine flour mingled with oil "mingled" is used.
This is typology of the incarnation of Christ.
Leviticus 2:4
King James Bible
And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.
Show us in Scripture where it teaches there is no God.
Christians have taken the typology of the Old Testament offerings very seriously. Ghost may want to move the goalpost around. But the Christ as the one to whom the offerings of Leviticus symbolize is not trivial to many.
The atheist is now into argument by ho-hum apathy, nervously shifting around the goalpost, raising the bar of skepticism incessantly.
Franz Delitzsch speaks yo "anointed" and "mingled" in Lev. 2:4 -
"As the latter were to be smered with oil, we cannot understand bahlul [Heb. "mingled"] as signifying merely the pouring of oil upon the baked cakes, but take irt in the sense of mingled, mixed, ie., kneaded with oil."
[Franze Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IV. Harper and Bros. 1872, page 531]
J.N. Darby's picks up on Delitzsch's comment in his New Translation of the Bible.
In a footnote on the world "mingled" in Lev. 2:4:
"Bahlul. It cannot, I think be doubted that this is more than, and intended to be more than mashshagh "anointed." "Mixed," "mingled," is the sense of the word. In Psalm 92:10 it is not merely "anointed" as consecration, but his whole system is invigorated and strengthened by it; it formed his strength; hence it is "fresh oil" there.
Christ is God mingled with man whom came to reproduce God mingled with men.
Yet He alone has the Godhead though His salvation produces "many sons" He is leading into the corporate expression of God.
"For it is fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory . . ." (Heb. 1:10)
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
You have been asked to show us your biblcal support for athiesm - that God does not exist. Since you are appealing to the Scripture as the bearer of truth.
Are you going to show from the Bible that God does not exist ?
If not, and you're looking for a charlaton, a cheater playing fast and loose truth . . .
do you have a mirror?