Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Patrick on Revelation 20:10 and 19:3

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Navas
    This is from my friend Dave of scripturaltruths.com: Patrick, Overall I felt the presentation was very good, but I do have a few comments. I thought your point
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      This is from my friend Dave of scripturaltruths.com:
       
      Patrick,
       
      Overall I felt the presentation was very good, but I do have a few comments.
       
      I thought your point on “forever and ever” was very good.  The expression does not truly mean eternity, but it is used to denote such, but in context, it is used for eternity within a figurative reference.
       
      One thing I would note is that there seem to be two views on the hypostatic union, depending upon who you ask.  One seems to be the one that you address, where Jesus is the God-man, but where his natures are split, with some texts addressed to one nature, and other to the other.  A good number of Trinitarians also understand that they are blended together and cannot be separated.  So every text refers to the complete God-man and not only one nature or the other.  This is very difficult, IMO, when it comes to texts that refer to Jesus’ death and such, but something I felt worth mentioning.
       
      In Hebrews 1 when God speaks of begetting Jesus, I have always understood that text to refer to his resurrection.  That, IMO, seems to best fit the context, and so I don’t think that it impacts the “eternal generation of the son” teaching.  Perhaps some Trinitarians view it differently.
       
      One thing I noted was in the following paragraph.  Just the word “no” and it should be “not”:
       
      So the real truth of the matter is that, scripturally, for Christians “there is one God,” and this one God is “the Father” (no the ‘Trinity’) and (kai), in addition to this “one God,” there is “one Lord, Jesus Christ”—but Jesus Christ was made to be the “one Lord” by that same “one God, the Father,” “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
       
      Additionally, I do not see a problem with understanding 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a modification of the Shema, but I would not understand it in the same way as Bowman puts forth.  You properly observe that it makes little sense to say that we have “one Jehovah/Yahweh Jesus Christ.”  However, if the Shema was considered modified so as to place Christ next to God as our exalted Lord, such would be appropriate. I am working on something where I plan to discuss this in a bit more detail.
       
      Anyway, as I said, overall it was a good presentation.
       
      -Dave
       
    • Patrick Navas
      Rob, I don t know if you are intending to respond to my discussion (Heb 1:8; 1 Cor. 6:6) on any level, but I would at least appreciate if you attempted to
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 18, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Rob,
         
        I don't know if you are intending to respond to my discussion (Heb 1:8; 1 Cor. 6:6) on any level, but I would at least appreciate if you attempted to address my questions (without ignoring or glossing over any of the relevant points I have brought up):
         
        How do you get around Harris’ true statement made in reference to the king of Israel, about him not being ‘God’ in the absolute sense, since Yahweh is the king’s God? And how does this fact not equally apply to Jesus if the very same text (with all the same, key elements) applies to him?
         
        If calling Jesus “Lord” in the New Testament means that he is “YHWH (in the classical, trinitarian sense),” how could the Father be described as “the God of our Lord (YHWH) Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:17)?
         
        If by calling Jesus the “one Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the apostle meant that Jesus is “God Almighty,” how could the apostles have believed and stated, at the same time, that Jesus was “made Lord” by God and that God had “given” Jesus the authority intrinsic to his Lordship (Acts 2:36; Matthew 28:19)?
      • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
        Patrick, You wrote:
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 18, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Patrick,

          You wrote:

          << That is, the expression "the smoke ascends forever and ever" is
          likely an idiomatic/poetic/metaphoric/ way of getting the idea
          across that the city (or whatever is represented by the city) will
          be violently/dramatically, permanently and irrevocably destroyed by
          God. >>

          If so, then "to the ages of the ages" means forever and ever without
          end, because whatever is represented by the city is "permanently and
          irrevocably destroyed," never, ever, ever to return to existence,
          forever and ever, without end. That is the simple point I have been
          trying to get you to see. Most conditionalists and annihilationists
          agree that "to the ages of the ages" means "forever and ever,"
          without end; they simply argue that what lasts forever is the
          annihilation of the wicked. It makes absolutely no sense to argue
          that "to the ages of the ages" means for an indefinitely long yet
          finite period of time. Such an argument really does not even fit the
          conditionalist or annihilationist belief.

          You wrote:

          << Then this gives us further reason to think that "neither literal
          torment will last for all of eternity from persons (devil, beast and
          false prophet) literally burning in a literal lake of fire." (Rev.
          20:10). And that is exactly the point, or, at least, one aspect of
          the point I have argued. >>

          You're making a point of no impact on the orthodox doctrine of
          eternal punishment, which does not require us to believe that people
          will be literally burning in a literal lake of fire. If that's what
          you're criticizing, have at it. Meanwhile, the orthodox doctrine
          remains unperturbed.

          In Christ's service,
          Rob Bowman
        • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
          Patrick, You wrote:
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 18, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Patrick,

            You wrote:

            << I don't know if you are intending to respond to my discussion
            (Heb 1:8; 1 Cor. 6:6) on any level, but I would at least appreciate
            if you attempted to address my questions (without ignoring or
            glossing over any of the relevant points I have brought up): >>

            That parenthetical remark reveals a problem with our discussions,
            Patrick. I have answered many of your questions, some of them
            repeatedly, and you claim that I didn't answer them or that my
            answers "glossed over" something you wrote.

            You wrote:

            << How do you get around Harris' true statement made in reference to
            the king of Israel, about him not being `God' in the absolute sense,
            since Yahweh is the king's God? And how does this fact not equally
            apply to Jesus if the very same text (with all the same, key
            elements) applies to him? >>

            I have already answered this. Jesus is not just another king of
            Israel. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. What the Psalm
            says about the Israelite king applies to him only in a typological
            way; it applies fully and definitively to the antitype, Jesus Christ.

            You didn't like this answer the first time, so I doubt you'll
            acknowledge that I answered you this time, either.

            You wrote:

            << If calling Jesus "Lord" in the New Testament means that he
            is "YHWH (in the classical, trinitarian sense)," how could the
            Father be described as "the God of our Lord (YHWH) Jesus Christ"
            (Ephesians 1:17)? >>

            Because the Lord (YHWH) Jesus Christ became incarnate, and as such,
            the person of the Lord Jesus Christ relates to the Father as a human
            being to his God.

            Again, I've already explained this.

            You wrote:

            << If by calling Jesus the "one Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the
            apostle meant that Jesus is "God Almighty," how could the apostles
            have believed and stated, at the same time, that Jesus was "made
            Lord" by God and that God had "given" Jesus the authority intrinsic
            to his Lordship (Acts 2:36; Matthew 28:19)? >>

            Because by humbling himself in becoming a human being, Jesus
            depended on the Father to exalt him.

            Now, I will ask YOU a question that I have asked you repeatedly, on
            the other subject of our exchanges, and which I don't think you have
            yet even tried to answer. This comes from post 1561:

            "I asked you before: Is it your view that the devil, the beast, and
            the false prophet will be tormented, but only for an indefinitely
            long time?"

            In Christ's service,
            Rob Bowman
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.