1 Timothy 2:5 verb tense

Dizerner

Well-known member
This is (what follows, not what you just said ) what you believe?

One formulation is that Eutychianism stressed the unity of Christ's nature to such an extent that Christ's divinity consumed his humanity as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar.

No, I would not phrase it like that. I think in the incarnation Christ literally divested himself of some divine attributes, and his divinity was somehow within his humanity. He spoke as if he had left heaven and his localized identity was the man speaking. If in his omnipresence he were still sharing glory with the Father in heaven it would make no sense to say "I came from the Father and entered into the world." This shows a preceding location and a transference of location. Classical Trinitarianism has Jesus sticking on a human nature which is not in itself a person, yet Jesus would have always been simultaneously in heaven and the world at all times. I have many posts explaining my position including the one I already linked, which I'm guessing wasn't even read.

The reason I asked is that it's based on Aristotle who did not have the concept of alloys or mixtures. For example a drop of wine put in a pool of water was transformed to water, not diluted with it.

People love to draw inferences with anything that sounds similar, it's the genetic fallacy. "Oh, this term sounds a little like one an old philosopher used, now we know with 100% it was completely derived from him." This is one old description trying to describe Christ having an ontologically changed nature, and I think the general idea in some aspects is helpful, but don't agree with this particular definition.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Can you respond to 1 Timothy 2:5 and give us your take on anthropos. Is Jesus present state a man, a human being as you like to say ? yes or no.

Thanks !
@The Real John Milton

I know you won't ignore a sincere request, and no one here or in the other forum will tell me how this is possible in view of the literal meaning of Hebrew 5:7.

And, do you personally consider it a major creedal necessity to believe that the resurrection body of Jesus and all other humans is composed of the same sort of flesh and blood that we have.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
And, do you personally consider it a major creedal necessity to believe that the resurrection body of Jesus and all other humans is composed of the same sort of flesh and blood that we have.

I don't think it's important whether Jesus has the same flesh, as I have elsewhere argued for. Paul said it is sown one kind of flesh and raised a different kind, so it seems to me it can't be exactly the same kind.

I do think it's important Jesus is still classified as human as we will also be when glorified, because his role as Savior has eternal significance and function in regards to truly being one of us on our behalf.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I notice that this verse is monadic. Not a Son but the Son

Monadic noun is as far as I can tell a manufactured category by Wallace.

As far as the article is concerned, it serves as a pointer to a previous mention of the same noun and is anaphoric. If the noun υιός were monadic it would not need the article to be monadic as there would be no other use of that noun.

Now if you mean this noun refers to the μονογενης υιός then the unique identify of this particular Son is based on the anaphoric article and I agree there is only one.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't think it's important whether Jesus has the same flesh, as I have elsewhere argued for. Paul said it is sown one kind of flesh and raised a different kind, so it seems to me it can't be exactly the same kind.
.
Paul never says that the resurrection body has a different kind of flesh.

He says it has a different kind of body.

He does say flesh does not inherit the kingdom.
 

froggy

Active member
Monadic noun is as far as I can tell a manufactured category by Wallace.

As far as the article is concerned, it serves as a pointer to a previous mention of the same noun and is anaphoric. If the noun υιός were monadic it would not need the article to be monadic as there would be no other use of that noun.

Now if you mean this noun refers to the μονογενης υιός then the unique identify of this particular Son is based on the anaphoric article and I agree there is only one.
Yeah! He is the only Begotten Son. Now that is monadic and the term monadic existed long before Wallace
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yeah! He is the only Begotten Son. Now that is monadic and the term monadic existed long before Wallace
He manufactured a distinct Greek category that is not necessarily and can be misleading.

It's ones view of the context masquerading as grammar.
 

froggy

Active member
He manufactured a distinct Greek category that is not necessarily and can be misleading.

It's ones view of the context masquerading as grammar.
He manufactured a distinct Greek category that is not necessarily and can be misleading.

It's ones view of the context masquerading as grammar.
You are really missing the point or you are avoiding it. The Only Begotten Son. (One of a kind). This isn't about Wallace.
 
Last edited:

Hark

Well-known member
I'm a fairly classical Trinitarian but with a few fundamental differences that would label me as a "Kenosis" heretic to many here.

I believe God is one being manifested in three separate relational identities, however I don't believe God is subject to logic, space or time, which... makes some things about God seem paradoxical to us. So I would define God as fundamentally unknowable yet able to reveal himself.

This one being is the three persons of the Father, Son and Spirit. I believe the Father's will is the origin of the Spirit and Son even though they share his attributes and being, and I don't believe the Spirit proceeds from the Son and Father as many church fathers surmised.

The big divergence for my particular theology is in my Christology particularly in the area of the incarnation and non-traditional understanding of the union of Christ's two natures. I believe in an actual ontological change in the being of God when the Word became flesh.

This is similar to some old beliefs labeled such things as Eutychianism.

I explore some thoughts on this subject in my first post on Carm's new forums here:

I believe in the Triune God also but for each Person to serve as a Witness, is why there are 3 Witnesses within the One God and so God has always been that way as the Triune God for the Son in agreement with the Father's will & permission along with the agreement of the Spirit, can create anything or establish a testimony or even to judge any one as the One God. Even God the Father needed another Witness per Matthew 8:17 of His verbal testimony regarding His Son from Heaven in Matthew 3:15-17 for why the Holy Spirit alighted on Jesus.

I believe Jesus is the Word of God that men had seen in the O.T. Jesus Christ Before His Incarnation As Seen By O.T. Saints

Since we were created in the image & likeness that both the Son & the Father share so that when the request was made to the Father to make man in our image.. and the father says yes, then as the One God with the Spirit, God created man in His image.

The irony is that God the Father's will is specific in how we are to come to Him as all invitations points to the Son before and still after salvation to avoid the spirits of the antichrist for why Jesus is the only way to come to God the Father by ( John 14:6 ) and only by honoring the Son is how anyone can honor God the Father by as we will be judged when we are not honoring the Son but honoring the Holy Spirit because that is not the way to come to God the Father by in honoring Him.. ( John 5:22-23 )

Those who err, broaden the way in the worship place ( Matthew 7:13-27 ) thus allowing the spirits of the antichrist to come in and mislead many by their visitations and strong delusions that God permits for believing the lie they can approach Him by another way than just by the only way of the Son; John 10:1 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3,7,9-15

They call on the Holy Spirit and these spirits of the antichrist come in these movements of confusion ( slain in the spirit, holy laughter, another baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues ( only for private use which proves it is not of Him per 1 Corinthians 12:4-21 ) for why God is not the author of it and why that is not the Holy Spirit responding. Indeed, only the Son answers the prayers so that the father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers per John 14:13-14. Jesus knows the mind of the Spirit to give the Spirit's unuttered intercessions to the Father so if and when the Father agrees to the Spirit's unspoken intercessions for us, the Son still answers the prayers. Romans 8:26-27 KJV All that the Holy Spirit does as the spirit of Christ is why all credit & glory goes to the Son per John 16:13-15

So the mind of Christ we are to have in regards to the Trinity doctrine is to be led by the Spirit in testifying of the Son ( John 15:25-27 ) to glorify the Son ( John 16:14 ) in order to glorify God the Father ( John 13:31-32 ) by in worship, & ministry ( Philippians 2:5-13 ).

Many churches & believers today are at risk of being let behind for how the apply the Trinity doctrine as if it justifies worshipping the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son per Luke 13:24-30 for why they need to narrow the way back to the Son in coming to God the Father for anything..

I hope to go to you link to read what you have shared, but I need to take a break first. God be willing, I shall return.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You are really missing the point or you are avoiding it. The Only Begotten Son. (One of a kind). This isn't about Wallace.
You made it about Wallace when you misused him. The only "sun" he says is monadic from GGBB is in our solar system. But it's still a contrived and unnecessary "category."

Wallace says "the Lord" is par excellence because there are many lords. Well there are many sons of God as well.

This is the second time I remember seeing you throw out a term from Greek as if it proves some sort of point. The last time was 'reflexive' pronoun.
 
Top