Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Patrick on Revelation 20:10 and 19:3
- 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 dont 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 Christbut 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
- 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 kings 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)?
<< 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
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.
<< 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
In Christ's service,
<< 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.
<< 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.
<< 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.
<< 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
In Christ's service,