Was the christian god lonely?

My question becomes: What about those who don’t believe because “they don’t know what they are doing?”


I previously indicated the opinion of some concerning this passage. That's because I have no solidified opinion concerning it myself but find it fascinating for discussion.

I think I would say at this point that I am not sure what Jesus meant by "they do not know what they are doing".

For about the last year I have held an opinion something like this:

Those who sin against men and women do not realize that they are actually commiting an offense against God. God said that revenge was His and that He would repay.

At the present time I think I understand Jesus Christ to be saying that the people do not realize that what they do they are doing against God Himself.

At least this has helped me in my Christian walk. Not only the crucifixion of the Son of God but even the commiting of sin in any form is ultimately an act AGAINST God Himself. This is probably why in Matthew we are taught by Jesus to turn the other cheek and to not resist the one who would do us evil. They do not realize that the offense is really against God Himself. He will vindicate. We can leave our vindication up to God. The act is only secondarily against us. It is really against God Himself.

Our sins are against God. And we do not realize it as we should. We do not know that one day to God Himself we will be called to account.

Perhaps that is what the Lord Jesus meant that they just did not realize what they were doing.

Now, we all can come up with all kinds of hypothetical cases and "what ifs". We're not the first to do so. In Genesis 18 Abraham repeatedly and boldly pressed God concerning "what if" scenarios. He wanted to assure himself that God would be a just Judge. In essence many of us are still doing the same thing with our various and creative hypothetical cases to torture test logic of the gospel.

Eventually, Abraham's faith uttered this:

"That be far from You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from You: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)

I have embraced this passage wholeheartedly - " ... shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

I have been at peace with this and no longer fret over various hypothetical cases. Like Abraham the father of faith, we who believe in the Bible's God are all on a "Divine Need to Know" basis. What God deems necessary for us to know He has told us.

I would suggest that the curious believe and stick around until the "Divine Need to Know" deems that more information be given to us at the appropriate time.

At least we have one entire book of the Old Testament dedicated to the subject of God's reluctance to condemn an entire society - the book of Jonah.

You made other comments that require me to look up some definitions. At this time I have no response.

Originally posted by jaywill
Big Mac,

[b]
So, you are establishing here that believers will be gods someday. Is that correct?

First let me state what I do not mean.
I do not mean that the saved will be objects of worship.
I do not mean that the saved will be omniscient.
I do not mean that the saved will be omnipresent.
I do not mean that the saved will be omnipotent. ...[text shortened]... fe and in nature but not in His Godhead. God expands and dispenses what He is into the saved.[/b]

Really, He ist he son of god you say... news flash we are all sons and doughters of god because of what it says in the 1 book of moses. I will create man in my own image. Does that ring a bell?
How about this then for you to ponder over, Bar abbas means what?
If you know some hebrew you would know to what I am geting at.
and their for state one thing that you cant turn away from.
God is inmortal wright? Jesus died right.
God is perfect, Jesus was inperfect. Why? Well, did he have kids or was he married?
And if you cant answer that you should stop and try to convince people that christianaty is the way to go. Because it isnt, their are a few other religions I can say who would do as good.
dont ever forget that christian religon comes from the same religon as muslim does namley jewish one.
Even you self can get the proof if you really want.
Guess what religon Jesus was, hmm?
One thing more.
How dare you try to do turn people to the christian faith that is dont man.
We have one earth to live on lets find a way to live together insteed.
Because that is what the three religons have in coman to say to their belivers. so lets try that on for size.
Peace is the only way to go.
Peace is the only thing we should stride for.
Peace is the only thing that worht any thing.

Originally posted by theprotectors
Really, He ist he son of god you say... news flash we are all sons and doughters of god because of what it says in the 1 book of moses. I will create man in my own image. Does that ring a bell?
[b] How about this then for you to ponder over, Bar abbas means what?
If you know some hebrew you would know to what I am geting at.
and their for stat ...[text shortened]... o.
Peace is the only thing we should stride for.
Peace is the only thing that worht any thing.[/b]

As far as it is up to me, I live at peace with everybody.
-Paul

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course the suggestion that everyone is ultimately 'saved' begs the question as to why go through the whole process to begin with. Why not just send everyone to heaven immediately?

Well, that goes back to the whole POE question, doesn’t it? In the conventional theistic model, somewhere an O’s got to drop.

But what I’m really doing of late is revisiting my old home ground to see how the “perennial philosophy” has been/can be expressed there, within—let’s call it a Christic framework (people like St. Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysus, Meister Eckhart—maybe even curmudgeonly St. Paul with his God “who is above all and through all and in all,” and “in whom we live and move and have our being,” and “the fullness...who fills all in all”: those are at least panentheistic expressions). It seems to be at least as ancient a stream as the conventional one (centuries before Luther’s sola scriptura or Biblical literalism/inerrancy). It seems to have been more prominent in the Eastern churches (e.g., Greek Orthodox)—ex Oriente Lux! And the language—at least how the terms are used—sometimes seems so different that people in the two streams have difficulty even communicating with each other.

I’ve really only just scratched the surface, and want to see how far I can go; doing a lot of reading and research—but once again I seem to have taken the red pill...

Originally posted by theprotectors
Really, He ist he son of god you say... news flash we are all sons and doughters of god because of what it says in the 1 book of moses. I will create man in my own image. Does that ring a bell?
[b] How about this then for you to ponder over, Bar abbas means what?
If you know some hebrew you would know to what I am geting at.
and their for stat ...[text shortened]... o.
Peace is the only thing we should stride for.
Peace is the only thing that worht any thing.[/b]

Protectors,


Really, He ist he son of god you say... news flash we are all sons and doughters of god because of what it says in the 1 book of moses. I will create man in my own image. Does that ring a bell?

You apparently think that to be created in the image of God is the same as being a son of God.
Well, you have some ground to say this. In Luke’s gospel Adam, the first man created by God, is called ”the [son] of God” (Luke 3:38) But this cannot be ”sons of God” in the New Testament sense. Why?

Because in the New Testament what constitutes children of God or sons of God is the new birth via the divine life of God. ”But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, who were born … of God” (John 1:12,13) Both those who received Christ and those who reject Christ are created in the image of God. Yet the authority to become children of God is granted only to those who receive the Son of God and thus born of God in regeneration.

”But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son … That He might redeem those under the law, that we might receive the sonship” (See Galatians 4:4,5) If all those descendents of Adam are sons of God in the NT sense because they are created in the image of God then there would be no reason for the Son of God to come that they might receive the sonship.

”For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Romans 8:14) The Apostle does not write that as many as are created in the image of God are sons of God. New Testament sons of God firstly have within them the Spirit of Christ and mature to be led by that Spirit.

”But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him” (Rom. 8:9.) If to be in the image of God makes a son of God then both those with the Spirit of Christ and those without the Spirit of Christ are both sons of God. This would directly contradict Paul's qualification that only those with Christ’s Spirit are His and only those led by His Spirit are sons of God.

To be created in the image of God means to be created as a vessel “shaped” to contain God. God was not in the vessel of man’s created being. He placed man before “the tree of life” in Genesis so that God would enter into the vessel created in His image.

But in Adam’s sin man was excluded from partaking of the tree of life. Man has therefore been down through the centries an empty vessel created in the image of God until divine life is again presented to him as the Son of God Jesus Christ – ”… the last Adam became a life giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45)

In short the NT puts qualifications on what makes sons of God. Being created in the image of God does not constitute New Testament sons of God.


How about this then for you to ponder over, Bar abbas means what?

Still, the gospel is clear that the authority to become children of God is given to those who received Him (John 1:12). These humans have undergone a second birth – ”who were born … of God” (v.13) It is wrong to say that both those who received Him and those who reject Him are both granted this authority merely because God created man in His own image. It is incorrect to say that both those who received Him and those who rejected Him were ”born … of God".

In the revelation of the Bible the final sons of God are those born of God and not merely created by God. So Christ teaches ”Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a man is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)

To be in the vegetable kingdom you must have the life of a vegetable.
To be in the animal kingdom you must have the life of an animal.
To be in the human kingdom you must possess the life of a human.
And to be in the kingdom of God you must be born again with the life of God.

”Do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born anew. (John 1:7) To participate in God’s eternal plan we must be born anew. We must receive the Son of God and with Him the second birth and the sonship is ours.

I will cut this post here.

Originally posted by jaywill
Protectors,

[b]
Really, He ist he son of god you say... news flash we are all sons and doughters of god because of what it says in the 1 book of moses. I will create man in my own image. Does that ring a bell?

You apparently think that to be created in the image of God is the same as being a son of God.
Well, you have some ground to say this. n of God and with Him the second birth and the sonship is ours.

I will cut this post here.[/b]

I wrote :

”Do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born anew. (John 1:7) To participate in God’s eternal plan we must be born anew. We must receive the Son of God and with Him the second birth and the sonship is ours.

I meant John 3:7.

Theprotectors,


God is inmortal wright? Jesus died right.

Jesus Christ is human that He could die. He is God so that the effectiveness of the death has eternal significance for us.

So He is God mingled with man - a God-man.


God is perfect, Jesus was inperfect. Why? Well, did he have kids or was he married?


Jesus never drove a Honda Civic down Route 66 in the Metro DC area as I do. That is true. However in the Spirit of Christ is available all of His endurance, forebearance, longsuffering, faith, obedience, faithfulness, wisdom, humility, strength, etc. of His life experience on earth.

The idea is that He desires to live on the earth again. But this time within you and I. So He lives again as the life giving Spirit to carry us through and support us in our human experience. And this even though many details may be different from what He experienced.

The details may be different but the basic principle of living unto God and through God do not change.


And if you cant answer that you should stop and try to convince people that christianaty is the way to go.

We are told to go to all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. It is not an "anity" that I am talking about. It is rather a living Person.


Because it isnt, their are a few other religions I can say who would do as good.

Jesus is not a religion. Jesus is a living Person who as the life giving Spirit can convey into man the divine and resurrection life of God:

"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

He came that we might have life and have life more abundantly (John 10:10).


dont ever forget that christian religon comes from the same religon as muslim does namley jewish one.
Even you self can get the proof if you really want.
Guess what religon Jesus was, hmm?
One thing more.

What's that?


How dare you try to do turn people to the christian faith that is dont man.

I don't understand this sentence. Anyway I do dare to discuss the Son of God and the eternal purpose of God to dispense His life into man.

In your Hebrew Bible God placed the created man before "the tree of life"/ So God's intention has always been that man receive divine life into him.

Today the tree of life is actually the life giving Spirit that Christ transfigured Himself into in resurrection:


"the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

Christ is not a religion. He is the life giving Spirit to dispense the life of God into man. This is according to the eternal purpose for which God created man in Genesis.


We have one earth to live on
lets find a way to live together insteed.

Have you never read? "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth"

Therefore the one earth will be inherited by the meek.


Because that is what the three religons have in coman to say to their belivers. so lets try that on for size.
Peace is the only way to go.
Peace is the only thing we should stride for.
Peace is the only thing that worht any thing.

Your Hebrew Bible says that the wicked know no peace. So we who are wicked need to be reconciled to God and made righteous. Righteousness brings peace.

So some of us believe we must come to the Prince of Peace, God's Son.

Vistesd,

St. Paul with his God “who is above all and through all and in all,” and “in whom we live and move and have our being,” and “the fullness...who fills all in all”: those are at least panentheistic expressions). It seems to be at least as ancient a stream as the conventional one (centuries before Luther’s sola scriptura or Biblical literalism/inerrancy).

The first reference "above all and through all and in all" refers to the Father in Ephesians 4:6.

The "all" refers to all members of the mystical Body of Christ. He was not pantheistically teaching that God the Father is in all mankind. Seeing fuller scope of the passage helps to reveal this:

Being deligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace: One Body and one Spirit, as also you were called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism; One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph.4:3-6)

The One Body of Christ who possess the One faith in the One Lord and are indwelt with the One Spirit are the constituents who enjoy the One Father who is over all and through all and in all. Paul is not talking about non-believers in his gospel along with believers in his gospel as one entity.

The fullness of the one who fills all in all is also a refernece to the mystical Body of Christ:

"And He subjected all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head pver all things to the church, Which is His Body, the fulness of the One who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:22,23)

Here again Paul is speaking of the mystical Body of Christ, the ekklessia. He is not saying that both the called out ones together with those not called out are the Body of Christ with this fulness: - "the church ... Which is His Body"

You should not understand this to be "the [world] which is His Body."

The Body of Christ is the entity that has within the life of Christ. And the life of Christ is granted only to those who received Him:

"As many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to be children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were born ... of God" (John 1:12)

Your last reference is from Acts 17:28. And there only I can agree that Paul is saying in some sense that created humankind moves and acts in God when the entire passage from verse 19 through 29 is examined carefully.

However what about verse 30 which indicates a line of demarcation between those who repent to revelation of this previously "UNKNOWN GOD" and those who do not?

"Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance God now charges all men everywhere to repent, because He has set a day in which He is about to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a Man whom He has designated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from among the dead"

This is surely not pantheism. All the created humans on the earth who move and have their being in some sense in God are now commanded to repent. God will judge the earth using the resurrected Man whom He has appointed - Jesus Christ.

And it is clear from many passages in Acts that the Spirit of Christ was received by some and rejected by others. Paul paid attention to this matter even asking if disciples had received the Spirit.

If this divine Spirit were in all men on the inhabited earth there would have been no reason for Paul to ask them:

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (Acts 19:2)

There is no pantheistic teaching from the Apostle that whether they believed or not they had the Holy Spirit just because they were God's creation.

Do you agree ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Vistesd,

[b]St. Paul with his God “who is above all and through all and in all,” and “in whom we live and move and have our being,” and “the fullness...who fills all in all”: those are at least panentheistic expressions). It seems to be at least as ancient a stream as the conventional one (centuries before Luther’s sola scriptura or Biblical literali ad the Holy Spirit just because they were God's creation.

Do you agree ?

[/b](1) I referred to the quoted statements by Paul as panentheistic, not pantheistic.

(2) Re: Ephesians—Again, it comes down to which texts one uses to con-textualize (there’s a pun in that hyphen) which texts. With regard to “fullness” referring to back the ekklesia, point well taken. However—

(a) I don’t necessarily take 4:6 as referring strictly to the 1st person of the trinity here, since it says “and Father,” not “the” Father. One does not have to list the entire triune formula every time one speaks. Nevertheless, in Paul Tillich’s “pre-Trinitarian” formulation, “father” does refer to God as “ground of being” (pneuma/spirit as power of being, and son/Logos as being-itself, or being-engendered).

(b) I understand the reference of the church as the mystical body where God’s fullness is expressed—but it is not the church, but “him” who “fills all in all.”

(c) For these “all” phrases to refer only to the ekklesia, then such phrases as “above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named” (v. 20) would logically refer only to the same “all.”

God’s all-in-allness goes back to Judaism. If God’s fullness does not fill all-in-all, then God is a limited being among other beings—even if those beings were created by God (out of some “nothingness” that limited and bounded and confronted God?), even if God is the superest of all of them.

Isaiah 6:3—Holy, holy, holy, YHVH Tzevaot, the fullness of all the earth is his presence (or abundance; or, better, abundant presence). The Hebrew melo is a noun meaning “fullness,” not “full”. The Hebrew kavod is better translated as presence than glory—unless glory can be taken to mean something like God’s radiant presence.

Besides, God did not create only members of the ekklesia in the divine image, nor breathe into only them the divine spirit in Genesis.

(3) Re: John 1:12—Note that here in John, Jesus’ name has not yet been mentioned. The passage is referring to the Logos of God, who was with God and was God from the beginning, through whom all things were begotten (Greek :egeneto), who has become incarnate in Jesus, who therefore is called the Christ. But all things from the beginning have been begotten through/by/by means of that Logos.

The interesting word here is egeneto. It is different from [/i]poieo[/i], to make, construct or form (the word used in the Greek LXX to translate bara, “created,” in Genesis 1:1, for example); and from ktizo, to create, found or establish. It’s root is ginomai—to become, to be born, to happen, to appear, to arise, to be produced. It is the same root that is translated as “beget.”

This is not to argue that Jesus was not unique. It is to explore the question of whether God’s Logos is seen in everything.

As St. Gregory of Nyssa put it—

“That God should have clothed himself in our nature is a fact that should not seem strange or extravagant to minds that do not form too paltry an idea of reality...that God is all in all; that he clothes himself with the universe, and at the same time contains it and dwells in it.

“If then all is in him and he is in all, why blush for the faith that teaches us that one day God was born in the human condition, God who still today exists in humanity?

“Indeed, if the presence of God in us does not take the same form now as it did then, we can at least agree in recognizing that he is in us today no less than he was then.”

Further, the word translated as “receive” is lambano, can apparently be taken either in an active or a passive sense: “The word [lambano] has two main senses, one (more active) to take; the other (more passive) to receive.” (Liddel-Scott Greek-English Lexicon—“LSJ”.)

(4) Quite frankly, sometimes “all” just has to mean “all” to make any sense; for example—

>> NRS Romans 11:32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.

>> NRS 1 Corinthians 15:22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

One cannot meaningfully change the meaning of the word used with such parallelism in the same sentence!

My point is this—(a) absent direct context indicating otherwise (which there sometimes is, certainly) , “all” means “all”; and (b) finding such context in one place does not legitimize extending it to every place. The counter-position, I suppose, would be that, absent direct context indicating otherwise, “all” means just the ekklesia.

(5) Your points with regard to the Holy Spirit are also well-taken. And there I need to further exploration. For the time-being, I will just reiterate that God’s spirit resides in humanity from the beginning (Genesis 6:3—Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years".) This is the spirit that the psalmist, in Psalm 51, prays to be renewed and not taken away.

Also, sarx (“flesh,” matter) is dead unless enlivened by spirit (pneuma).

Perhaps there is a similarity in this to the paradoxical language used in regard to the kingdom—which is within you (Luke 17:21), but must nevertheless be received (Luke 18:17) and entered into (also, e.g., 18:17).

___________________________________

Returning to the first point, however: God either is/will be all-in-all, or God is/will be less than all-in-all.

Your willingness to accept the soteriological tension that may be implied in this, based on confidence in God (as per your prior post), is commendable.

Vistesd,

A good and extensive post.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
(1) I referred to the quoted statements by Paul as panentheistic, not pantheistic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++[/b]

Sorry. My mistake.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
(2) … Re: Ephesians— … With regard to “fullness” referring to back the ekklesia, point well taken. However—

(a) I don’t necessarily take 4:6 as referring strictly to the 1st person of the trinity here, since it says “and Father,” not “the” Father. One does not have to list the entire triune formula every time one speaks. Nevertheless, in Paul Tillich’s “pre-Trinitarian” formulation, “father” does refer to God as “ground of being” (pneuma/spirit as power of being, and son/Logos as being-itself, or being-engendered).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe that Father throughout the entire Bible in reference to God refers to the Father in the Triune God. Otherwise, we end up with two or more divine Fathers. There is only one unique divine and eternal Father in the Bible.

I see no reason why the Father as the ground of being should be another Father besides the Father whom the Jews believed was their God:

”For You are our Father, Since Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not acknowledge us. You, Jehovah, are our Father; Our Redeemer from of old is your name.” (Isa. 63:16) Jehovah or Yahweh is the divine Father. ”But now Jehovah, You are our Father” (Isa. 64:8) How could this be another Father from the Father of the Trinity of the New Testament?

Whether we speak of the divine and eternal Father as the ground of being, or the Father Jehovah of Israel, or the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or the God and Father who is above all and through all and in all members of the Christian church, it is the same Father.

Besides the Father Who is Jehovah God is there another divine and everlasting Father who is the ground of being?
Jesus draws an direct link between the God and Father the Jews claimed was theirs and His Father Who sent Him:

”They then said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, God [See Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 1:6]. Jesus said to them, If God were your Father you would love Me; for I came forth out from God and have come [from Him]; for I jave not come of Myself, but He sent Me.” (John 8:41b,42)

God and Father as the ground of being is wonderful. But He cannot be a different God and Father from that One in Ephesians. Paul opens his letter with – ”Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ … Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2,3) And in chapter 3 Paul bows his knees “unto the Father of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named” (3:14,15)

Why should the God and Father of Ephesians 4:6 be another Father from the unique of all families to whom the Apostle prays on behalf of the saints? The “ground of being” we can only say is another aspect of this unique divine and eternal Father of the Bible.

Incidently, the little I have read about Tillich's concept of God as the "ground of being" I do find helpful.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(b) I understand the reference of the church as the mystical body where God’s fullness is expressed—but it is not the church, but “him” who “fills all in all.”

(c) For these “all” phrases to refer only to the ekklesia, then such phrases as “above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named” (v. 20) would logically refer only to the same “all.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I didn’t make a general statement that ”all” everywhere in the letter can only mean the ekklesia. It is quite easy to find exceptions. However, the Father being in all in 4:6 has to be the church. For the church is the habitation of God in spirit (2:22). So the church is the living vessel and the Father God is the inhabitant indwelling this vessel. Therefore she is ”a dwelling place of God in spirit”


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God’s all-in-allness goes back to Judaism. If God’s fullness does not fill all-in-all, then God is a limited being among other beings—even if those beings were created by God (out of some “nothingness” that limited and bounded and confronted God?), even if God is the superest of all of them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the Old Testament you do have God saying that He fills the earth and the heaven. That is true. But apparently that is not the same kind of filling which He desires in the sense an organic inner dwelling of man. I would demonstrate this from the book of Isaiah:

”Thus says Jehovah, Heaven is My throne, And the earth is the footstool for My feet. Where then is the house that you will build for Me, And where is the place of My rest? For all these things My hand made … But to this kind of man will I look, to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word” (See Isaiah 66:1-2)

Here you have God telling the Jews that they cannot possibly construct a house to contain Him and in which He would find rest. But He will look to man for such a dwelling place and a resting place:

”But to this kind of man will I look …” In other words for His house and for His rest God will look to dwell within a certain kind of man. Here we have a paradox. God fills all creation in one hand. But He still desires a special organic and spiritual indwelling within the being of man. The former concept speaks of God’s omnipresence. He latter concept speaks of God's dispensing His life and nature into man that He may dwell in man.

This was realized first in the incarnation of Christ the Word become flesh as the God-man. It is climaxed in the New Jerusalem which is the ultimate habitation of God in spirit – a mutual dwelling place of God and man united in oneness.

I'd like to continue latter.

Visted,


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isaiah 6:3—Holy, holy, holy, YHVH Tzevaot, the fullness of all the earth is his presence (or abundance; or, better, abundant presence). The Hebrew melo is a noun meaning “fullness,” not “full”. The Hebrew kavod is better translated as presence than glory—unless glory can be taken to mean something like God’s radiant presence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This all may be true. But fullness in Ephesians is related to Christ – God incarnate as a man.

”That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be full of strength to apprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and height and depth are and to know the knowledge surpassing love of Christ, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God.” (Eph. 3:17-19)

First Christ the living Person is dispensed into the hearts of the believers by means of their faith. He comes to live within them.

Secondly, with all the saints (believers) they are to know the vast dimensions of this Christ expressed actually as the dimensions of the universe. That is the breadth and length and height and depth. The word picture is that Christ (God incarnate) is as vast as the universe. How broad is the breadth? How long is the length? How high is the height? How deep is the depth? The mention of these open ended dimensions suggests that it will take eternity to explore the rich vastness of what Christ is,

Indeed, His love surpasses our knowledge – ”the knowledge surpassing love of Christ”. And the result of the saints ever widening apprehension of Christ’s riches result in the Body being ”filled unto all the fullness of God”.

While I appreciate your reference to the Old Testament to draw on the fullness of God, the immediate context of Ephesian’s usage of ”fullness” is something arrived at through the instrumentation of the indwelling Christ.

Verse 17 is the initial request of Paul’s prayer – ”that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith". And the final result is that the saints would be filled unto all the fullness of God.

I get the strange feeling that you are trying ignore Christ and make Ephesians refer back to an Old Testament concept of fullness which requires no incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Besides, God did not create only members of the ekklesia in the divine image, nor breathe into only them the divine spirit in Genesis.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are calling the breath of life in Genesis 2:7 the divine spirit. Do you equate this breath of life with the Holy Spirit of the New Testament?

Look at Genesis 6:17 – “And now I am about to bring a flood of water upon the earth to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.”

I have taken this to mean the animals as well as the human beings. How do you take it? If it refers to ”all flesh” literally as animals , do they also have the Holy Spirit?

In short I do not take the breath of life breathed into man’s nostrils in Genesis 2:7 and refered to in Genesis 6:17 and 7:22 as identical with the Holy Spirit sent as Another Comforter and Advocate after the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

If all people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit by virtue of their creation and life principle there would be no need for Christ to promise the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. They would have already possessed such a Spirit. Did they not have the breath of life within them?

”And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.” (John 14:16-18).
1.) The Spirit is coming to the disciples. They do not inwardly possess such a Spirit even though they are indeed created in God’s image as typical men.

2.) The world at large does not know this Spirit of reality. If the Spirit of reality was identical to the breath of life in Genesis then surely all the world would know such a Spirit.

3.) As Jesus speaks this Spirit is with the disciples. But in the future He will be closer to them. He will be in them. ”But you know Him because He abides with you and shall be in you.”

Jesus was the one who was abiding with them. And Jesus in His pneumatic form is the same one who will be in them. He will change His form to facilitate a closer relationship of indwelling them.

4.) This is proved by the change of the pronoun from ”He” to ”I” in the next verse 18. ”I will not leave you as orphans. I am coming to you.” The Christ dwells with them. And they know this Christ Who is with them. However, in the near future He will have a much more intimate relationship to the disciples. He will be in them. He will not leave them as orphans. He will come to them.

”The last Adam became a life giving Spirit” (`1 Cor. 15:45).

The coming of the life giving Spirit, the Spirit of reality, after the resurrection of Jesus is not the coming of the breath of life which all created men have simply because they are alive. It is of course true that both the saved and the unsaved are created in the image Of God.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(3) Re: John 1:12—Note that here in John, Jesus’ name has not yet been mentioned. The passage is referring to the Logos of God, who was with God and was God from the beginning, through whom all things were begotten (Greek :egeneto), who has become incarnate in Jesus, who therefore is called the Christ. But all things from the beginning have been begotten through/by/by means of that Logos.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It doesn’t matter that Jesus or Christ is not mentioned by name. The birth is not of blood. Nor is it of the will of the flesh. Nor is it of the will of man. But it is of God. If John was talking about simple creation of life then I think the blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man might not be excluded as the cause of the birth. These are created items.

The point of verse 12 is that the new birth cannot be achieved because ones parents were born such – ”begotten not of blood”. It is not the result of the will of the fallen man, the flesh – ”begotten … nor of the will of the flesh”. And it is not even obtained by the will power of the unfallen man created by God who was ”very good” – ”begotten … nor of the will of man”

Begetting was of God. And the authority to receive it is not given to mankind in general but to those who received the Logos. Since verse 14 says ”And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” it is understood that the Logos is the Jesus Christ of the subsequent pages of John’s gospel.

John even says that the hands of the apostles handled and touched the Word of life in First John chapter one. They handled and touched Jesus, especially after His resurrection. The Logos in verse 12 should be understood as Jesus.

”That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life. (And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” (1 John 1:1,2)

He is talking about Jesus Who has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)[/b]
And we who have opened our hearts to receive Him into us know that He abides within by His Spirit:

”And in this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us” (3:24).

” … the last Adam [Jesus Christ] became a life giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45)

Why do you want to draw a wedge between Jesus and the Logos? Do you want to somehow weaken the force of the New Testament regeneration? The Logos became flesh. From His human birth the Logos began to be called Jesus. And when He comes again in His second coming He has a name written which is ”the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13).

Other comments will have to be submitted latter.

Originally posted by jaywill
Visted,

[b]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isaiah 6:3—Holy, holy, holy, YHVH Tzevaot, the fullness of all the earth is his presence (or abundance; or, better, abundant presence). The Hebrew melo is a noun meaning “fullness,” not “full”. The Hebrew kavod is better translated as presence than glory—unless glory can be taken to mean something like God’s rad ]”the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13).

Other comments will have to be submitted latter.[/b]

Good stuff, jaywill! I will (try to 😉 ) limit my response a bit, as I’m short on time the next several days—

Incidentally, the little I have read about Tillich's concept of God as the "ground of being" I do find helpful.

Well, this can be a divide. (I recall Karl Barth saying, in reference to Tillich, that they were very close personally, and very far apart theologically.) I find Tillich’s approach here (though not everywhere) meaningful. I stand pretty strongly on God as “all in all” and as ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-manifest (my alteration of Tillich’s phrase)—theos, pneuma and logos; father, spirit and son—to be more amenable than God as a supernatural being.

I agree that one cannot separate the God of the OT from the God of the NT; but that does not mean that Jesus’ message about the nature of that Father was not new—Abba is a somewhat more intimate term, “Papa.”

While I appreciate your reference to the Old Testament to draw on the fullness of God, the immediate context of Ephesian’s usage of ”fullness” is something arrived at through the instrumentation of the indwelling Christ... I get the strange feeling that you are trying ignore Christ and make Ephesians refer back to an Old Testament concept of fullness which requires no incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.

I’m actually trying to relate the two. God’s fullness in nature (and us), and God’s fullness in Christ (and the indwelling Christ) as an expression of that. And God’s fullness as expressed in the (mystical) ekklesia.

Why do you want to draw a wedge between Jesus and the Logos?

I really don’t. But I do want to maintain here the doctrine of “two natures”—human and divine—in Jesus. I think this is important. When Jesus says, “I thirst”—from which nature is he speaking? When he says, “I am the way and the truth and the life”—from which nature is he speaking? That is the kind of thing I am getting at.

In early church literature, both Logos and “the Son” are used to refer to the pre-existing person of the Trinity. Sometimes, “Jesus” seems to be used to refer to that person (Greek: hypostasis) the same way; other times to the physical, incarnate manifestation of the historical person Jesus. The same with the term “Christ.” This, frankly, can get a bit confusing.

The question I have in the 1st chapter of John—and your point is well-taken, since Jesus is mentioned by name in short order—goes to the quote by Gregory of Nyssa. Is the Logos uniquely incarnate in Jesus, or exclusively incarnate in Jesus? John’s weaving here is, I think, deep and profound—and intentional. Believing “in his name” is mentioned in verse 12; the name of Jesus, not until verse 17. So is “Jesus” here the name of the historical manifestation, or a name for the Logos itself? (On my reading thus far, the early church fathers seem not to be consistent in their usage here.)

I suspect I am not being very clear here. Jesus is a name of the Logos; but The Logos is not only Jesus. Jesus is the Christ; but the Christ is not only Jesus. Jesus is a unique (and “sacramental” ) incarnation of the Son; but the Son, as the Logos, pre-exists the person Jesus’ incarnation. (or, rather, the Logos' incarnation as the person Jesus.)

______________________________

With regard to the Holy Spirit, I agree that the usage does not seem univocal. But I do not think that there is more than one divine spirit. So, at this stage, I would just venture that the divine spirit that dwells within us, and indeed, animates us, needs to be received/accepted if one is to live in the spirit. To live in the spirit is to live toward life; to live only in the sarx is to live toward death.

Opposition between the two is, in a sense, really illusory, since in fact we do live in sarx (physical existence) as well as pneuma. The message of the incarnation is critical here—God did not simply inhabit sarx in a ghostly (“spiritual” ) fashion, but became sarx. In the early church, since Jesus represented all humanity (and the whole of human nature), the incarnation is efficacious for the whole of human nature.

Gregory again: “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....”

Vistesd,

I am trying to relate my further comments to the original discussion topic. Was the Christian God lonely? That was the original question posed.

One thing is certain to me. The Christian God did not want to abide "alone". In John 12 Christ said this:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (John 12:24)

In this parable Christ likens Himself to the lone grain of wheat. That life concealed within the shell of His being will abide alone unless He dies. As the grain of wheat falls into the ground, its shell is broken, and the life concealed within it is released. Then a multiplication takes place and many grains are produced.

The one original grain is no longer alone. It has co-partners in the many grains produced from the release of its life from within its confining shell. It was not God's desire that the one unique Son of God abide alone. He was from eternity to be "the Firstborn among many brothers" (Rom.8:29)

Was God lonely? I think something like that must be true. But I am sure that He did not desire to abide alone. He desired to produce a multiplication of God-men through the death and resurrection of the God man Jesus.

The divine life concealed within the shell of His humanity was released as He died and rose from the dead. This was His falling into the ground to die and bear many grains in His resurrection. For the Apostle Peter says that the new birth (regeneration) was brought about by Christ resurrection from the dead:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3)

With regard to the Holy Spirit, I agree that the usage does not seem univocal. But I do not think that there is more than one divine spirit.


I do not think that there is more that one God the Spirit. But before the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus the Spirit who is imparted into His believers "Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified" (John 7:39)

There was not yet the Spirit until the resurrection and glorfication of Jesus.

"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, If anyone thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes into Me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.

But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for [the] Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:39 RcV

The word [given] in the King James Version (KJV) is italicized to indicate it is supplied by the translators for thier understanding for clarity. The original is more accurately rendered "was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." (Recovery Version)

"The Spirit of God was there from the beginning (Gen. 1:1-2), but at the time the Lord spoke this word, the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil.1:19), was not yet, because the Lord had not yet been glorified. Jesus was glorified when He was resurrected (Luke 24:26). After Jesus' resurrection, the Spirit of God became the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified, and resurrected Jesus Christ, who was breathed into the disciples by Christ in the evening of the day on which He was resurrected (John 20:22).

The Spirit is now the "another Comforter," the Spirit of reality promised by Christ before His death (John 14:16-17). When the Spirit was the Spirit of God, He had only the divine element. After He became the Spirit of Jesus Christ through Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, nd resurrection, the SPirit had both the divine element and the human element, with all tge essence and reality of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Spirit is now the all-inclusive Spirit of Jesus Christ as the living water for us to receive (vv.38-39)." [Footnote 39(1) RcV on John 7:39)].

It is helpful to think of ingrdients being added or compounded into the pre-existing eternal Spirit of God. Those added and compounded ingredients were the incarnation, life, crucifixion, and resurrection of the God man Jesus of Nazareth. This is the life giving Spirit that Christ the last Adam became - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

The LIFE given is not the BIOS (English life) or the PSEUCHE (also English life) but the ZOE (also English life) divine life of Christ.

If the Spirit was not yet then this is not the ruach breathed into the norstrils of the first created man in Genesis. And if the Spirit Who was not yet was about to be received by those who believed in Jesus then all created men did not possess this Spirit. And there is no indication that those who did NOT receive Him received this Spirit.

It is true that all men and women do have a human spirit. But the human spirit of the fallen man is comatose and deadened. Because the human spirit if the fallen created man is comatose and deadened it needs to be born again. The small s human spirit must be reborn by the coming of the capital S Spirit.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6)

In regeneration Christ causes the comatose human spirit to be born of the life giving Spirit of the resurrected Christ. This rebirth of the comatose human spirit accomplished by the Spirit of Jesus joining with the human spirit to become one mingled spirit - "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor .6:17)

1.) One state of the created man is to be apart from Christ with a comatose and deadened human spirit.

2.) The other state of the created man is to be born of the Spirit in his spirit by being joined as "one spirit" to and with the Lord Jesus.

The man who resists being "joined to the Lord" will still have a comatose human spirit in need of regeneration. That is in need of the new birth through receiving Jesus Christ the Lord. Therefore the created man should seek forgiveness through Christ's redemption and allow himself to be "joined to the Lord [Jesus Christ]" to have his innermost being - his human spirit joined as "one spirit" with his Lord Jesus. Then out of the innermost being will flow the thirst quenching rivers of living water.

The Spirit the Jesus said He would give as "another Comforter" is no longer "not yet". He is here. He is here because on this side of the resurrection Jesus HAS been glorified.


So, at this stage, I would just venture that the divine spirit that dwells within us, and indeed, animates us, needs to be received/accepted if one is to live in the spirit. To live in the spirit is to live toward life; to live only in the sarx is to live toward death.

In New Testament terms to live in the divine spirit is to live in the regenerated and mingled spirit. It is difficult to know whether to capitalize the s here or not. That is because the mingled spirit is the mingling of the human spirit with the Spirit of Christ which is God Himself.

This mingling takes place only in those who join themselves to the Lord. "He who is JOINED to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17) If a person does not acknowledge Jesus as the Lord and does not believe in His resurrection how can he be joined to the Lord? And if he is not joined to the Lord how can he be "one spirit" with the Lord?

Of course some would respond that too many who confess the Lord Jesus do not behave as if they are one with Him. Of course Paul speaks of walking in spirit and growing and maturing. He speaks of learning to be LED by the Spirit.

In other words --- the new birth is only the beginning. But it IS a beginning and without it the created man is not joined to the Lord Jesus to be one spirit with Him. So we need to come to the Lord Jesus, receive His redemptive death and victorious resurrection and be joined to Him by faith. Thank God He is faithful to His word.



Gregory again: “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....”

I entirely agree with Gregory on this point. I think on this point he very much knew what he was talking about.

God became man so that man might become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. God dispenses what He is in Christ as the Spirit into man to uplift, sancfity, and even deify man to produce the many sons of God.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]With regard to the Holy Spirit, I agree that the usage does not seem univocal. But I do not think that there is more than one divine spirit.


I do not think that there is more that one God the Spirit. But before the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus the Spirit who is imparted into His believers "Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not ...[text shortened]... sancfity, and even deify man to produce the many sons of God.

So looking back on all these posts, was god lonely? As maybe the reason you think it creaated the universe?