Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
With the possible exception of the small portion "were in no way afflicted by" I find that your statement is not only marginal within what is available to be read in the Bible, but can only be understood as whimsical or otherwise not based upon the Bible, but wholly upon a human notion. Or the insisting that things said in other contexts about other things must force their way into this discussion.
Sort of like declaring that leaven is always bad. Metaphorically and figuratively it is used by Jesus as both good and bad. Therefore the use of the word has no obvious meaning as to the status of the thing that it is likened to. Rather it is the context that supplies the status. "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" is clearly bad. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which . . ." is clearly the opposite. So "leaven" does not control the nature of the thing being talked about. But it does describe how that thing, whether good or bad, disappears into something else and causes changes that are vastly beyond what would be imagined from such a small bit of substance.
As for the little part about being "in no way afflicted" it is reasonable to assume that a God who is not simply a cold, heartless being (cold-hearted orb that rules the night . . .) that cannot be moved, I could never imagine that the Father was not affected. Afflicted might be a little much, but arguably similar and therefore plausible.
But part of the one that died on the cross? It just isn't a reasonable conclusion from any of the information available.
And I don't need a new verse to tell you that the unsupported things you are saying are wrong. You need a verse to establish that what you are saying is true. You are asking me to disprove what has not been tentatively established as true.
And this is the place where it should be pointed out that this forum is at least partly about discussing the errors (or at least potential errors) of Nee and Lee. Therefore the fact that they said something is not a valid point in their favor. Since there is, and has been, a significant body of study and agreement (even among groups that don't entirely agree on everything) that have disagreed with the marginal positions since the beginning, and since Lee is effectively resurrecting a variant on an ancient heresy, the weight is on you to prove that it is true. And "Lee said" is not proof. If that is all it takes to have a fact, then I can simply say that "I said" and you are foiled. But then you would say "But I say" and we would be at an impass.
The thing is that since the controversy concerns the teachings of your favorite theologian (or more correctly, non-theologian) his bare statements about what things mean other than what they say is not a defense of their position. I admit that I have made statements about what certain things mean. But I have at least been thoughtful and am willing to allow you to look at the passages and tell me how I am wrong. And I can show you how I think I am right. I don't need Swindol or Ryrie or Piper or any other in most cases. The Bible is really quite readable if you just read it rather than study its jots and tiddles for coded messages. You need something more than a lot of pray-reading to cause something that is not there to suddenly be what it is talking about.
So, without resorting to quotes from Nee or Lee, what is it that causes the Father to be on the cross with Jesus the Christ? The extra-biblical terms co-exist, co-inhere, as well as the others do not suffice. They do not force there to be an absolute unity of "persons" for lack of a better word. They do not obscure and obliterate the "tri" of triune. They only describe something of the "une." Your version says "triune" but effectively means "une." There is One God. Period, Amen. I can hear that God saying "I know you talk about three stuff, but you should forget it because it is really parlor tricks. 'We' are little more than a series of schizophrenic episodes."
Don't think I am insulting God. rather I am acknowledging that he is much more than the limitations that such an extreme understanding of "une" puts on him. It's as if there is no three. It was a waste of ink and scroll. There was no reason to end letters with references to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. "We" really are just one with one name. I don't know what those human scribes were thinking. They messed it all up. Thank myself that Lee came along and straightened it out. That Bible is just not very accurate or meaningful.
|
I have not quoted Lee at all in my past posts.
My post said this:
Matt 27:46 is my biblical proof that the Spirit was with Christ on the cross until the 9th hour. The Spirit leaving Christ means that the Spirit was with Christ up until that moment which included a significant portion of Christ's crucifixion journey, most of it, except his darkest hour and death.
Is there any clearer proof from the bible that the Spirit was truly with Christ on the cross?
From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him:
The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ on the cross and even to his death. The cross did not dissolve the hypostatical union.
When you say that *only* the Son died on the cross you are correct, the Father and the Spirit cannot die, but you are also incorrect, if you think it meant the Godhead was not dwelling in Christ's body in those moments. If you think that the Son dying on the cross was anything less than the Godhead, Elohim, indwelling human flesh, you are wrong. Christ was not the Godhead in human flesh for only some of the time, and not all of the time. In that sense, we can say that the whole Godhead experienced what it was like to die on the cross.
We all know the ant analogy - Just as a person would have to become an ant to understand what its like to be an ant, God became a man to understand what it's like to be a man. This idea must extend to the whole Godhead. It is not that only one third or two thirds of God understood what its like to be a man, but the whole Triune God.
If that concept is heretical then is it any more heretical than saying that only a third of God understood what it was like to be a human? Do we really believe that only a third of God, the Son of God, understands humanity and the Father and the Spirit are in ignorance and denial?
I believe this is the erroneous idea in many Christians heads - the Son is the only one who understands them and pleads their human case before the Father in Heaven who does not understand humans. And the Spirit is just an impersonal power or force who does miraculous stuff. They do not realize that the Father was in the Son on the cross, and that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of Christ who experienced the crucifixion. The cross did not change the oneness between the Father and the Son that Jesus talked about in John 10:30, particularly since Christ's death on the cross was an act of obedience and in fulfillment of the Father's will.
John 8:29 He has not left me alone, because I always do those things that please him." - because the cross pleased the Father, the Father never left Jesus alone on that cross.