Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Drake · 02-10-2017, 10:33 AM

OBW)"And you seek a verse, so here it is.

John 17:20-21. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

Here Jesus said that we are to be one just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. We like to take this to extremes. And you have done so in a manner than puts the Father in Christ being crucified and therefore being there. But if the oneness that we human Christians can experience is likened to the kind of oneness that is described as "you in me and I in you" then maybe we aren't so clear about how far that goes, or exactly what it means. If it means that we are to be unified like the Father being present inside the Son as he is crucified, then there is an obvious extent in which we are simply not capable of being that "one."

OBW,

I am glad you brought this verse up. Perhaps it will provide clarity.

When Jesus referred to I in You, You in Me, they is Us ... He obviously was not referring to His physical body. He was apparently referring to something deeper. more intrinsic. We know now in retrospect that this refers to Christ's spiritual Body.

If we can be part of something intrinsic, like His Body, but not part of His physical Body nor share in His Godhead, then it is plausible, more than probable, that there is a distinction that can, and needs to made, concerning these lines of demarcation. That also applies to events on the cross as it does every other event such as incarnation. Clearly, the man Jesus, who became sin itself on the cross was abandoned by the Father, and He as the Son as that Man really died, but that does not alter in anyway the eternal status of the Father and Son and Spirit as coinhering, co-existing, and co-equals. That divine and holy relationship is maintained throughout. If you are willing (and maybe you are) to affirm that the essence of God and the Godhead (all the co's) never change then the explanation for the Father forsaking the Son must be understood apart from mentally tampering with a change in the Godhead. The ditch of Trithesim awaits those who try to explain a separation of the Son from the Father on the cross as in anyway related to the essential Trinity. To make that assertion and to make it stick would mean you have to trace that separation at the cross (if that is where you think the separation occurred) and then back through His human living, incarnation, and ultimately back into the Godhead. Or else, you have to show where along that same path a separation occurred.

Drake

02-10-2017, 10:33 AM	#77
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,075	Re: Lee's Trinity OBW)"And you seek a verse, so here it is. John 17:20-21. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. Here Jesus said that we are to be one just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. We like to take this to extremes. And you have done so in a manner than puts the Father in Christ being crucified and therefore being there. But if the oneness that we human Christians can experience is likened to the kind of oneness that is described as "you in me and I in you" then maybe we aren't so clear about how far that goes, or exactly what it means. If it means that we are to be unified like the Father being present inside the Son as he is crucified, then there is an obvious extent in which we are simply not capable of being that "one." OBW, I am glad you brought this verse up. Perhaps it will provide clarity. When Jesus referred to I in You, You in Me, they is Us ... He obviously was not referring to His physical body. He was apparently referring to something deeper. more intrinsic. We know now in retrospect that this refers to Christ's spiritual Body. If we can be part of something intrinsic, like His Body, but not part of His physical Body nor share in His Godhead, then it is plausible, more than probable, that there is a distinction that can, and needs to made, concerning these lines of demarcation. That also applies to events on the cross as it does every other event such as incarnation. Clearly, the man Jesus, who became sin itself on the cross was abandoned by the Father, and He as the Son as that Man really died, but that does not alter in anyway the eternal status of the Father and Son and Spirit as coinhering, co-existing, and co-equals. That divine and holy relationship is maintained throughout. If you are willing (and maybe you are) to affirm that the essence of God and the Godhead (all the co's) never change then the explanation for the Father forsaking the Son must be understood apart from mentally tampering with a change in the Godhead. The ditch of Trithesim awaits those who try to explain a separation of the Son from the Father on the cross as in anyway related to the essential Trinity. To make that assertion and to make it stick would mean you have to trace that separation at the cross (if that is where you think the separation occurred) and then back through His human living, incarnation, and ultimately back into the Godhead. Or else, you have to show where along that same path a separation occurred. Drake