FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

Sometimes the simplest answers to complex questions the Lord places right in front of us. Its there, but we do not know what to do with it. After painstakingly and patiently debating someone who was far from being mature in doctrine... and to make matters worse, claimed to have an IQ of 180. I discovered that sometimes by knocking your head against the wall and never quitting has its dividends, if so ordained. This is one case in point..

This person claimed that the Trinity is body, soul, and spirit. Obviously, he pointed to the humanity of Christ for the body, and used something to show God is spirit. But, what really hung his picture on the wall was his use of OT passages to show the God is soul. Those passages he presented I simply told him were examples of anthropopathism. That God is not body, but spirit.(John 4:24) This seeming empty debate I unexplainably felt motivated to stay with. I keep trying to reason with him because a younger growing believer was also involved with the debate...

Well... here is what I believe became a case of having my eyes opened.

Jehovah as the Lord God of Israel tells us He has a Soul. This spoke of the pre-incarnate Lord, not about Jesus on earth.

Here are some examples of OT passages I speak of...


Leviticus 26:10-12

'You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new.
Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not
reject you.'I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall
be My people."



Judges 10:16

And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst
and to serve Jehovah, so that his soul became impatient
because of the trouble of Israel.



Psalm 11:5

Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one,
and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates.

After many days of debate it suddenly dawned on me that the the soul of Jesus which entered the body born of Mary, was the same Soul of the Lord God of Israel! That prior to the incarnation, the Lord God of Israel had been always manifested as a hypostatic union, sans a physical body.

It explained how Jesus who was previously manifested as God could become as a man in every way. For, He laid down His right to function as He had been.. eternally existing in the essence of God (Phil 2:6-8), and made Himself to become as a man by means of Jehovah's soul. In doing so, He made Himself to be body, soul, and human spirit. His soul, unlike ours, was never created (can explain later).

To remain as a man He had to refuse to take back up to Himself His powers of Deity. Those unlimited powers He had known prior to the Incarnation. He had to remain as the perfect human to be our substitute for all humanity on the Cross.. That being.. Until He was finished His work of redemption and propitiation.. Now, He has returned to being in the state as the Lord God of Israel was. But, in addition to what He had been during the days of Israel, is now including a permanent glorious Heavenly body.

End of intro...

Grace and peace.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

This actually is fairly interesting because solves the issue anonymenon and I were having about the hypostatic union pre-Christ (because 'ye are gods' demands a "God-man"). We ourselves become "godmen" as a result of Christ.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here, however: "In doing so, He made Himself to be body, soul, and human spirit."

You'll have to elaborate on what "human spirit" is, as... we don't even have that (just: Body / Soul / Holy Spirit).

@ Hupostasis

I always thought the Holy Spirit revived our Human Spirit upon faith (born again: of water and SPIRIT) to make it a dwelling place.

Also, what defines the hupostasis of Christ? Is it Christ incarnated in flesh that results in hupostasis, or is it the fact that Christ had a human soul?

If the human soul is what made the Lord hupostatic in the OT time, then all believers are hupostatic since our souls are formatted after the image of God.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

God's Soul. Not simply any ordinary, 'human' soul. But, a soul of the same essence just the same. Man was created in the Father and Son's image. "In Our image." The Human Soul is what God saved. The Human Soul is extremely important to God. Its God's fellowship provision. God does not want to be alone. For what He has is so great, that He had to created another mind to share this glory with.

The angels on the other hand, were created in the Father and Holy Spirit's image. The Holy Spirit is a hypostatic union of an angel's essence of spirit, and Deity of the Father.

The Son = Deity + soul of the same essence of man.

The HS = Deity + spirit of the same essence of angels.

Only the Father is Deity alone without union. The Father alone can not be contained to be known as He is. That is why we have the Trinity as God's means to make Himself knowable to men and angels.

Man could never be in the same category as the hypostatic union of the Son. For we will never have the same fullness of knowing all that Deity is.. The Lord right now is the fullness of Deity in bodily form.

For the Father has allotted to the Soul of Christ all that there is of God that a soul could ever eventually come to know for all eternity. The Lord in His Soul is now ALL that could ever be known of God by eternal men. Within Christ is all the Father (God) that men can and will ever know! For, in eternity we will always be learning, in increments, about God. In contrast to man, Jesus already has all of God that all souls could ever know. Which is not finite as it it may seem at first glance. For our learning about God will be never ending. Mind boggling...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

@Gene: playing contrarian here, for there are issues to resolve.

The passages cited all use Hebrew nephesh, which doesn't necessarily mean 'soul' but 'life', 'inner thinking', and is translated with Greek psuche, same meaning. So you'll need to prove that 'soul' is the literal meaning as in Gen 2:7 for Adam. That's a hard thing to prove. But if there are other Bible verses to say it, then use those. Where are they?

So if God's using an anthropopathism rather than literal soul, still Divinity of Christ, but no pre-existing human soul. Or, is speaking PROPHETICALLY of the time when He will have a human soul, as in

Psalm 40:6, quoted in Hebrews 10:5, and Isaiah 53:10's im tasim asham naphesho (same word as in the passages you cited). So if you (Greek) or he (Hebrew) will give soul as a substitute for sin. So God-Father talks to God-Son definitely in eternity past, but 'will give' (lit., appoint) doesn't require the soul to yet exist.

Of course the other problem is that the BODY is created FIRST, op cit. No soul-less bodies and no body-less souls, anywhere in Bible in heaven or on earth. So how to justify/explain a soul with no body in Christ alone?

There are theologies making this claim, but I've never seen any Bible verses to support them. To just claim that every verse using 'soul' for 'God' ipse means 'God' has 'soul' is not good enough, since the term doesn't necessarily mean a literal soul, i.e., animals don't actually have souls, but 'soul' is used for their LIFE, like in Lev 17:11.

The word 'nephesh' itself has to do with BREATHING: it's a cognate noun of naphash, to breathe. So then implies no such thing as soul without body, and the BREATHING is proof there is a soul inside the body. But then again, wouldn't necessarily require every BREATHING being to have a soul.

Then, do angels have souls? We don't have anything saying they breathe anything. Yet they have mouths, or can be made to appear as having them. But if made of light, then they don't need to breathe or eat, or any of the metabolic processes we humans have. So how does that square with Christ having a soul but no body?

On the other foot... Its even a harder thing to disprove. Especially, when it answers so many important questions.

Just the same.. You mean to tell me God's life was not pleased? Or, God's life hates violence? Or, God's thinking hates? Thinking does not hate. Our soul hates what we think about something!


Judges 10:16

And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst
and to serve Jehovah, so that his soul (LIFE?) became impatient
because of the trouble of Israel.

I think it would be the contrarian's obligation here to explain how the definitions you offered could work in the passages I provided you. I believe.. the context protests against your position.


Psalm 11:5

Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one,
and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

What questions does it answer? God has no soul. So to use an anthropopathism/anthorpomorphism to express attitude, where is that invalidated if no soul? 'Hate' is an anthropopathism, mental attitude of negativity (in us, BLIND negativity, ergo sin).

Father Son Spirit have the same attitudes. But only Son has Soul. So then SOUL is not needed to have attitudes.

So then the explanation for your same passages is easy: God's ATTITUDES are expressed, and don't require soul to exist, to have them. But 'soul' is used, to make accommodation to man who has a soul, wherein attitudes reside.

So you'll need to provide more verses to demonstrate a contention that 'soul' is literal, not figurative language of accommodation, in those verses.

God does not hate. Only a soul can. God has made the Son to be our Mediator between God and man, and has the Son to be the means to reveal the Father to us in a manner we can relate to. We can not relate *directly* to Deity. Its the Son who is designated to exegete the Father to us (John 1:18). Revealing God to men is most practical when its by means of the expression from his Soul. For, we are souls, and we will readily relate to another soul. The Lord God of Israel was always explaining God to men.. He is the one shown in the OT to possess the Soul.


God has no attitude. Attitude is relegated to the Son having the Soul. To reveal them in terms we will relate to. To see the Son is to see the Father. The Soul enables us to see the Father in a manner we can comprehend and even identify with.



You sound like a Unitarian trying to make what was said to appear as they want it to appear. God has NO attitude! Just like God does not hate. The Soul of God relates to us in a manner we can understand. Having an attitude is for men and angels, not God. God already knows all things. God has no need for an attitude. He leaves that sort of thing to the soul of His Son and the spirit of the Holy Spirit to convey.



How could anyone do what you demand?

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

The word (sometimes in old translations) translated as "soul" in these verses is nephesh. While the LLX translators switched it to 'psuche', I'd say nephesh is being used figuratively and not literal (the word doesn't have to mean a literal soul every time it's used, and it doesn't). Since God is the creator and not the creation, He is 'beyond soul'. That's my take on it after comparing the OLTs... anyways...

After thinking it through, Christ only having a soul is necessary to be the case for the hypostatic union to exist. Because if God was as our souls in eternity past, He wouldn't have been able to make souls for starters, and there would be no difference for the hypostastic union to operate on. Since Christ's 'birthing' was unique with a "soul", that is what MAKES the GOD-MAN. Sure the biology is one element-- but guess what, the human body is receiving the soul.



I have not been able to solve this on my way home (I tried), and it breaks too many doctrines if you say there's a such thing as a "soul" and a "human spirit". Because a human spirit would have to be apart from the soul, and there's no mention of that. So Christ never had a "human spirit" because it's nonexistent.


Hupostasis is a result of the unique birth (which deals with a SOUL, that's when 'real birth' happens). The biology simply receives the soul and acts as an automaton. But the biology has to have the correct parameters to receive it... and you can't have 'one without the other' (a concept James gets into). At least for us. Because we either have the "earthen vessels" or a "ressurection body", God doesn't require any. If God were to impute our souls into some rocks, we wouldn't be able to think. Just as the same is what happened when God imputed Nebuchadnezzar's soul to a wild beast (well it wouldn't work properly as Nebuchadnezzar found out since it didn't have the right 'formatting').

You're correct, if the trinity comprised of three souls (and then Christ with His soul and 'another' human spirit with the 'holy spirit' along with biology) it would actually destroy the trinity since you'd actually have three beings with Christ turned into a strange abomination. And as explained previously, it's required for CHRIST to have a 'soul' to be human and complete hupostasis via 'unique birth'. If The Father and the Holy Spirit were "souls" there would be not hypostatic union and there would be three literal beings that are not 'beyond soul'. God is not multiple people; and multiple souls are multiple people.

Now I'm wondering where this puts the nephilim, actually. If we were to say that human biology was corrupted to the point where it couldn't receive "format soul". I guess I just answered my own question... :p
I'll have to investigate the nephilim and nebuchadezzar in "animal" form later. I never thought about the two, before.

King James in this case did not try to give an interpretative translation. The NIV, did. King James is very good for certain things. This was one of them. The Word is "soul." The NIV translators took liberties that they should not have with the Word of God.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

I see... well you're making an argument based on translations (when I wasn't even implying that, for nephesh is supposed to be there). The fact that you did this tells me a lot; for, you would rather argue English translations rather than concepts brought up. Many religious people do that, it's a defense mechanism for when you can't address everything. As a result, you 'attack' the only item(s) you can--even if it's awkward in lieu of what was previously said--such is the case now.

King James (the actual King) outlined this behaviour when arguing with Cardinal Bellarmine:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D1
(eventually he goes so far to say "they serveth us the same dishes over and over again")

The NIV is based on getting the 'concept' rather than a literal word-by-word translation. Word-by-word the KJV is correct, but the problem is people who aren't interpreting the text properly will ultimately gravitate to the literal meaning instead of figurative, too irresistible. Whereas the NIV gets the 'concept' better-- because it does not mean a literal soul. Since the NIV has omitted the point of irresistibility, it immediately becomes "WRONG".

It's better to research, admit the possibility of being wrong (particularly to yourself and not me)-- than to defend something with refusing to address anything and refusing to change your mind.

When studying the Bible, everyone gets something 'wrong'. It's about filtering the information and figuring it out (with God). If I say James says "faith without works is dead" refers to salvation and refuse to look at the OLT and the conjugation... well... that's what I'll believe indefinitely and will never grow up past it to realize it refers to believers exclusively (and that it has nothing to do with salvation). I get things 'wrong' all the time, some of which has been embarrassing-- but I don't hold myself to it and defend a dead end.

So then Christ having a soul hates, but God does not, so Christ is consistent with His Own Godness? Hmmm. You got a lot to work out here, since you're claiming the 'hate' verses are not anthropathisms, despite all the material you have and can find on the internet, showing those verses are anthropopathic.

As for human spirit, um saved man is tripartite like Christ, evidenced in such passages as Mark 2:8, 8:12; Hebrews 4:12. So Christ would have to have a Human Spirit pre-Body, too, in order to through His Soul have relationship with a) His Own Godness, and b) the Other Members of the Godhead.

Idea that soul life is to relate to other souls (angelic, human); spiritual life hence human spirit, to relate to God, and body life to relate to bodies (finite life). So we need new bodies at death but get no new human spirit nor new soul. There's no presentation of bodiless souls, nor of spiritual beings without bodies other than God, which I know of anywhre in Bible. Do you know of any?

So you'll need to do a lot of homework to fix your themes to warrant the conclusion. And Thieme himself did that, spent a lot of time on soul existence and why Christ had no Soul prior to the Virgin Birth, had a Human Spirit just like Adam did and when BORN, pattern of Gen 2:7; so you have those classes to go through. So the 'demand' is do-able; I'd need you to show how Thieme got it wrong, also. Not saying you're wrong, am saying you got a lot to prove, and the material to do it, since Thieme went through that material and you have it.

The material is in the Genesis classes, Hebrews (especially around Hebrews 4), in 1969 Basics (and earlier, but they don't send out the earlier classes anymore). It's also in Ephesians, but that's a seven-year exegetical series on PPG so I'll have to look up where. Probably in Ephesians 3 and 4, around there. Even so, those are the classes for comparison so verses presented there would have to be refuted to claim Christ had a pre-Incarnate Soul but no human spirit, literally, and to prove that 'hate' verses with God as the subject are not anthropopathisms.

@ Hupostasis

Please do elaborate on this if you could. I'm interested. I was of the opinion that angels, nephilim, and humans all had souls, were all eligible for judgement and therefore eligible for salvation.

Also, what has you convinced that the human spirit doesn't exist? Again, I'm very inerested.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

OK... You claimed I would rather argue English translations? After you are the one who presented the variations? Well.. in that case I may want to argue English translations, maybe. But you? You only want to argue.
This is going nowhere other than you give me the distinct feeling I walked into a very small town that does not like strangers.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

God's hate is righteous as its expressed through the soul of the Lord. For it also says in the Bible that the Lord has been storing his wrath till the right time. We understand those terms. For we are souls.



For starters... The Colonel taught that the "soul of Jehovah" was an anthropopathism. He at least did not try to play games with the meaning of the word - soul. His was a traditional view. But, an orthodox one.

I am not here to force any belief upon you. God has a Soul in the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ. You just have a hard time accepting that it predating the Incarnation.



As a man Jesus who had previously lives as God, had to live as a man. As the prototype Christian. He was pioneering our faith for us. He therefore could not utilize any enabling from His own Deity, or that faith could not be applied to us. For it would require that we be God, too, to walk in such faith if it so happened He was enabled by His own Deity. Instead .. He depended upon the Father for all guidance, and the Holy Spirit for all power. His Deity had been put in neutral while He walked the earth. His Deity could not enable Him. But His Deity could be in absolute total identification with His humanity, experiencing human frailty and weakness, etc.



Angels are never referred to as souls... Only spirits. Angels are spirits.. Hebrews 1:14



Yes... the following takes place prior to the Resurrection:

9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” [Rev 6:9-10]




The pattern wasn't changed. The Soul of the Lord God of Israel entered that body at birth.

selah...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Responding to your bold assertion which I bolded in red below. You assert that because I ask you for proof that I'm having trouble accepting truth. You have provided no proof, but only keep making assertions. I provided a mechanism showing what was needed to provide proof.

Further, you're not dealing with the very valid points about the meaning of nephesh as a cognate noun from naphash, nor are you dealing with anthropopathisms which are rife in the Bible, so you have to a) prove why LITERAL SOUL is the only meaning for nephesh in the verses you cite, and b) prove why NOT anthropopathic, the 'hate', 'abominate' and other verses God uses to express negative attitudes, in order to claim that these are solely SOUL attributes of Christ pre-incarnation.

You've done nothing to prove anything, but get huffy when someone objects. That is not good scholastic practice. So if your points are valid, you're not proving them but instead turning churlish when someone asks for proof. In light of the above, it's right to want proof.

No one is arguing against you personally. This is an impersonal set of issues which have to be resolved. That's what frank debate is like. We discard the personal (whether we know or like each other is beside the point). So offense is never meant and should not be assumed.

EDIT: Quoting Hebrews 1:14 alone doesn't prove angels don't have souls, since tripartiteness is needed for ANYONE to have fellowship with God Who Is Spirit, John 4:24 and in context, 14:6-26; and, the Lord said we'd be like the angels, so then they should have souls, Matt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 20:34f (all the same passage, really, on the eternal state). Then there's the fact He's called Angel of the Lord, which given your insistence on pre-Incarnate Soul would have to mean that angels have souls.

The Colonel is known and even lambasted for teaching tripartiteness. So you will have to prove him wrong, too. And, maybe he is wrong, but you'll have to prove how, to make your case.

Further, the Colonel did indeed provide BIBLE proof of anthropopathisms, anthropomorphisms in Scripture, extensively. Also, of no pre-incarnate Soul for Christ, and that God has no Soul because is SPIRIT and ETERNAL LIFE as part of His Essence. Since you choose to ignore that, and won't go through it to say why you think he's wrong; since you do not choose to provide proof but rather insults and continued assertions, this is my last post to you.

And further, you are claiming I am claiming that Christ had no soul. NO, that's not what I said, but only that the SOUL was not created until Birth, example of Hebrews 10:5 which the Colonel covered in detail in the Hebrews series.

You are welcome here, but we cannot have a dialogue on this, we twain. I need BIBLE proof to have dialogue, and here also proof from a pastor you claim to be under, since you are calling him wrong, as well.

@ Genez

Got some deep and profound gnosis for you my friend.

Translate and interpret this:
"καὶ καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁμοίως."

I trust that you have the proper tools to convert that into some usefull epignosis.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Re your red text below: this is FRANKFORUM, where people are allowed to be frank. It's not meant as kumbaya. If you read these posts in the various forums, you'll see that people lambast each other and criticize. That's 'frankness', not tiptoe-Mr. Nice Hypocrite. I get lambasted just like anyone else. That's FREEDOM.

You are free to be frank, too. There is no moderation, no agenda, not trying to win friends and influence people. If a problem is cited, that does not mean you are unwelcome, but it does mean you have a query re a problem with what you posted.

Whether you wish to respond and fix or prove the problem not a problem, is up to you. But if you respond by being offended instead, well.. that is also your free right, but it stifles further conversation.

No I don't. But, its Luke 6:31. A version of the golden rule.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Its frank, or crank? He presents an argument based upon a premise using different translations. If I respond in kind? I am the one trying to make it into a debate over translations. That was crank. Its a manipulation. Frankness is being straight with another. Not trickery. That's crank, not frank, when someone is not being straight with you.

Which brings up a point for frankness. I am a bit surprised to see some here claiming that the hypostaic union does not include a soul. I am beginning to wonder if some think Jesus was simply God inside human flesh, and had no soul, by the way some here responded.



I can be frank. I am not timid... But it appears that some here are equating being frank with being a crank. There is a difference. I am getting the impression that some here are abusing this concept of frankness like the kid that grew up in a legalistic home who went off to school, and gets drunk all the time.




I do not see a problem. That's the problem.

To be frank, I am having a hard time with something. All these years of doctrinal teachings? And, what I am saying is something you can not figure out for yourself.... quickly?

Not to mention, someone else here is still puzzled about the human spirit. Was it feigned stupidity? Just feigning stupidity to see what I am made of? I can not believe anyone who has had categorical doctrinal teachings from the sources we all have been exposed to, is still grappling over the issue of there being a human spirit. I assumed he was feigning stupidity for reasons only known to himself. At least, I hope that is what it is.

For if that person can not gasp such basic teaching and understanding of there being a human spirit with regeneration? How can he ever begin to understand the Soul of Jehovah?

Why should I even bother then? That was my point. I do not like wasting time when someone has no capacity for something I wish to explain. It requires teaching other things first. But, if the issue of the human spirit is not yet understood? I walked into the wrong classroom.

Well... Was that frank, or crank?

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Gene, now I respond as admin. First, you're not reading the posts clearly. No one claims Christ had no soul. The debate at my end is in light of information we both have from the same pastor -- whom you contradict sans justification -- and as a user in this forum I must therefore confront you. For, I'm not the only one in this forum under that pastor. There are many here who do not post, but most of them have the same knowledge base as you. Or could have. So someone must speak up, and I chose to be that person.

Dispute is fine; but without backup, all dispute is pointless. You provide no backup, yet. But are offended when it is requested of you.

Further, as admin, I wrote the post below, to remind you of the fact that there are no moderators, so just as you are free to say what you want, so they are free to dispute.

You call that dispute 'crank', which is also your free right. But if you misread what was written then your calling the person a 'crank' makes you look bad. For no one has claimed Christ had no soul, or was merely God 'indwelling' flesh. We all know better than that, here.

So maybe your experiences at other forums are so vile you feel the need to be hostile the first day you are in, but here that's not the response you're getting. You need to post proof of your claims, here. That's what is being requested of you. And, if you read the first two posts in response to yours, you'll realize you got favorable response.

So maybe take some time off and think over, read over, maybe you're having a bad day. For your reactions are not in keeping with the posts. Which is your right as well.. but if you want people to interact with you, then this kind or hostile response will not get you much farther.

You're not censored. Am just trying to recap what's going on. And what's going on, is that instead of providing the proof requested, you misread posts, misrepresent a pastor, and claim that what you said is obviously true. All this, despite the rather extensive proof that it's not obvious, i.e., the many meanings of nephesh, the many anthropopathisms, etc. Which I've had to repeat several times, and you just bypass, instead reacting with hostility.

Which is fine. But no more responses from me, are worth expending.

When I was presented that a word can have several meanings? . That is normal in a forum where folks really do not have much doctrinal understanding.

When that happens, one must take the time to slug it out to remove all doubt as to what a word means in its context. But, here? After their own pastor has exegeted it for them, and was in agreement as to what word it should read.. "soul?" That I found disturbing..

But more disturbing... I just opened a treasure chest for others.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

One last time, Gene: The word NEPHESH has been covered BY THIEME extensively, is in lexicons by scholars for centuries in agreement with what he explained, and the term is used pan-Bible to mean DIFFERENT THINGS. The use of anthropopathisms and morphisms is also well known, and Thieme is famous for explaining them also, so there is again agreement on BIBLE here. And, the text itself supports that.

So you have the burden of proof that ONLY 'soul' is intended when talking about God, since NOT only 'soul' is the way nephesh is used pan-Bible (with Greek psuche being the LXX and hence NT equivalent).

So you also have the burden of proof that 'hate' ONLY means the sin and is never used as an anthropopathism, especially when in verses where God is the subject of the verb.

This is all published material, which you denigrate and deny and instead ASSERT your own groundless positions absent answers to the above burdens, with no proof as to how your position is superior to Thieme's, the scholars, or Bible's. Which means, you're playing God yourself.

So no good can come from discussing this with you further, until and unless you actually DO YOUR HOMEWORK in lieu of maligning the homework Thieme and others for centuries have done, so we must respect THEM by bringing up valid objections. Which were you honorable, you would take the time to answer.

Finis. I won't be talking to you again.

TO OTHERS: at issue are several important doctrines which have been debated for years:

* Whether your soul existed prior to creation, which was a contention of the gnostics, both pagan and Jewish, and later Christians. So a variant of this is the Prototype Soul, the World Soul, the Original Soul. The doctrine is usually called 'prexistence of souls'. The so-called 'holy books' used to justify these doctrines are not Bible books, but wanna-be Bible books. Movies are made on the topic too.

*Whether your soul exists pre-birth, is a much larger topic and is contended a yes by Catholicism, and most notably today in the claims of so-called 'prolifers'. There's no Biblical support for the claim, and I've had to start making many Prolife Blasphemy videos to show how the Bible maintains you are not HUMAN until BORN because the soul. is made at BIRTH.

*My pastor also taught the foregoing extensively. So Christ Himself was God and God alone, until BORN, at which point a SOUL was created, Hebrews 10:5. My pastor exegeted that extensively, published tracts and did classes showing how Bible says you're not human until BORN. Whether or not one agrees with his studies is of course an individual journey one chooses to take. But if claiming to be under that pastor but claiming the opposite of what he taught as Gene is here doing, well.. then it must be called out. What PROOF is there of a contrary position? For we can present evidence of not human until born, and soul created at BIRTH, directly from Scripture (starting at Genesis 2:7).

*The topic of whether God 'hates' is also extensively covered in theology, with the general consensus (right or wrong) that such terms are anthropopathisms, meaning assigning to God human characterstics as language of accommodation for man to understand God better. So verses like Deut. 12:31; 16:22; Prov. 6:16 are understood to be juridical positions, not the emotion of hatred (God has no emotion). So to contend otherwise, would require special added evidence to prove how and why from Scripture, that such attitudes of God are literal yet not sin.

Sorry for this digression, but it seemed important to explain why the arguments in this thread occurred.

All quoted from an official RBT approved web site.


Leviticus 26:10-12

10~~And you shall eat old store,
and bring forth the old because of the new
{eat the old stores of food to make room for the new}.

{Spiritual Prosperity}
11-12~~ And I will set My tabernacle
{place where doctrine is taught categorically}
among you.
And My soul shall not abhor you. 12~~
And I will walk among you,
and will be your Elohiym/Godhead {Right God},
and you shall be My people {Right People}.

Colonel Thieme determined the word was to be Soul. His interpretation was that it was to be seen as an anthropopathism. The reason given, was that God's essence is not soul. He also taught correctly, that the person of Christ is one of having two natures. A soul being one of them.

That's all I am presenting, but with a different thrust. That the Lord God of Israel was always a hypostatic union, but without a body. Deity and Soul in one expression of the Lord God of Israel.

Once that can be settled in one's mind? It will make Philippians 2:6-8 easily and logicaly constructed into showing what took place. He (God's Soul) denied Himself to His right to function in his powers of His Deity. Having that accomplished, His Soul then entered the body which was prepared for Him. That is why we get to see Jesus calling the Father "His God." For He had made Himself to be as a man in every way, sans the sin nature. That could only be said if he were body, soul, and spiritually alive.

In the past there was no correlation made between the pre-incarnate state of the Lord God and his Incarnation state.. So, people concluded when show God has a soul in the OT that it was an anthropopathism. The Colonel, and others saw the Lord God of Israel being solely Deity. It never occurred to them that it could also speak of the pre-incarnate status of the Lord God of Israel who was later to become and be named the Lord Jesus Christ. Theology is alive and always growing. Its always entering into new phases of understanding that had been build upon the sound understanding which preceded.


Now... Judges 10:16, from the same RBT approved site...


16 And they put away the strange 'elohiym/gods
from among them, and served Jehovah/God.
And His soulwas grieved for the misery of Israel.


.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

I was not teaching on the pre-existence of the soul. Only God's soul. God's soul is uniquely eternal and unlike any typical human soul.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

The Holy Spirit is a special gift given at salvation only for the Church age believer. Its a gift in addition to what had been salvation for the OT believers prior to the Church age.

Nicodemus was told that he needed to be born again. The Church age had not yet begun. It was OT salvation he needed. So.. Born of the Spirit for the Spirit begets spirit.

We need to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit was not to be given until after Jesus was glorified. So, Jesus was not telling Nicodemus to receive the Holy Spirit, but to receive regeneration as was for all OT saints, to receive a human spirit.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
and you shall receive the giftof the Holy Spirit.

John7:38-39

38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture
has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom
those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit
was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

When Jesus told Nicodemus he needed to be born again? It was the OT salvation that was being offered, not Church age. For, what Jesus spoke of was to be done before the Church age began. Jesus told Nicodemus that spirit would be born of the Spirit, which was a human spirit.

When the Holy Spirit enters a Church-age believer to indwell, the Holy Spirit is not begetting the Holy Spirit. Its the Holy Spirit himself entering. God can not be born. God is eternal.

In regeneration for Nicodemus the Holy Spirit was who gives birth to the human spirit so he could know the things of God. The Holy Spirit indwells today so we can become the things we know of God, as God requires the believer. OT saints were never commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

John 3:5-7

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one
is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh,
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

It did not say, that which is born of the Spirit is the Spirit. Its not speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit. But of something born of the Holy Spirit.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Well this will be my last response. Salvation has *always* been the same, and that is by belief. So by saying there was O.T. salvation and N.T. salvation is disturbing. Salvation = ONLY believe, or, Belief + 0.

The Holy Spirit has always existed and operated on believers in the O.T.:


So to say that O.T. believers got a "human spirit" instead of the holy spirit is very bizarre. And then to make an argument of translation yet again saying it doesn't say *the* Spirit (which is an anal thing of English copulae, primarily).

And a simple search of " וְר֥וּחַ" we can see that the Holy Spirit is referenced in many places, most prominently in Psalm 51:


Also in John 3:7 it's ended with estin (which is REMOVED in translation):

So it is my belief that it's definitely referring to the Holy Spirit.

Sure there were some differences in the O.T., but I think saying the Holy Spirit didn't operate in believers pre-church age to be going overboard. They had 1 John 1:9 as well, which requires the H.S... and that means refilling/unfilling of the H.S. (it can't be anything else), to say it's a "human spirit" means referring to another entity that isn't God.

I'd talk to God about all of that before you solidify those ideas in your mind. Anything that makes salvation or 1 John 1:9 demented, is bad news.

Well, hupostasis, you'll want to look at Titus 3:5 wherein the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit, at Hebrews 4:12 and 10:5 as well, for the thing is, Adam was created with LIVES (plural, Gen2:7), as Thieme covered in each of those passages. The latter is in the Genesis series, and the former two are in the Hebrews series. The Titus series has the coverage on 3:5. Ask God to show you where the corroborating verses are, if you're in a hurry to see it's worth time to order the classes. Hint: search on 'soul' and 'spirit', for not all refer to the literal soul and the literal Spirit.

Thieme's books cover all this too, but the books are too simplistic and frankly nowhere near as good as the live recorded classes, which go through the exegesis. 1969 Basics has the tripartite explanation too, but it's been so long since I heard them, I don't remember where.

EDIT: a faster way to find the relevant material might be via http://www.rbthieme.org/PDF/Illustrations.pdf , which is searchable. It's a collection of the onscreen illustrations used during Bible classes. So you can search on 'human spirit' and find the illustrations and hence the class numbers and titles, corresponding to the illustrations. Same for 'soul'. I don't know if any of those illustrations include the classes above in the first two paragraphs of my post here. I heard those classes, didn't look up the illustrations, so all I have are my paper notes. I'm not allowed to upload the classes as the material is copyrighted (when I tried to upload the classes before the church asked me to take the material down, and I did).

There is a long debate among theologians about whether man is tripartite at salvation. Thieme was famous or infamous, take your pick -- for demonstrating from Scripture that man is tripartite when saved, only dual (using 1Cor2) when unsaved. He's not the only guy who spent time on tripartiteness, but he's the only guy whose classes I have and can cite.

If y'all want me to look up the specific classes I can, but you can order them free by the series for the verses cited, getting 10 classes fore and aft of each verse.

Then maybe y'all will want to rephrase this otherwise very important discussion topic.

Why your last response?

Of course salvation has always been the same. Believe in the Lord and you will be saved. But, the Jews believed in the Lord God. The Church now believes, but we have the Name of the Lord in the Lord Jesus Christ. Some things have changed, while the foundation has not. Believe in the Lord for salvation. But what takes place after you believe has changed for the Church age believer.

OT salvation = Jews received only a human spirit. For, Nicodemus was living in the age of Israel when Jesus told him he needed to be born again. And, look at Peter! Before the Holy Spirit was given to believers to indwell them Peter already knew that Jesus was the Messiah. How come? He was born again. He had a human spirit.

And, as I showed you with the passages I gave. The Holy Spirit was not given to every believer until after Jesus had been glorified. Nicodemus was not to receive the Holy Spirit to be born again. What is included with salvation has changed. Church age believers are a new creation in Jesus Christ! OT saints were not a new creation.

Why are you so quick to slam the door?

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Because it's a public arena to parry your thoughts. If the door doesn't slam on you it slams on me-- and that is the quickest way to learn.

I'll use the door bell next time...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

..............

Hupostatic refers to two different natures manifested in one being. What happened in the "incarnation" was that the eternal hupostatic union of the Lord God took on *flesh.* That is where we derive the word incarnation... as in "carnal" = fleshly. Colonel Thieme has exegeted that the union is eternal. Always was, and always will be.

Now, as in the OT as the hupostatic union as the Lord God of Israel.. He was not being manifested as a soul and human spirit. For as God He had no need for a human spirit when functioning as God. Its His human spirit that was given when He took on flesh. For as a man he had to learn and grow in knowledge. As Deity in the OT times there was never such a need. The human spirit is for our souls, so we can know and learn spiritual truths. As God before the Incarnation, the Lord God of Israel had no need to learn anything. For His Deity was always making His soul knowing all that His soul needed to be known at all times.

As Colonel Thieme taught about the transformation of the Lord God into becoming as a man. To become Jesus, the Lord had to cease to depend upon his own Deity for anything. In that state of making himself to be as a man, he henceforth had to solely depend upon the Father and the Holy Spirit for all his needs and works. In essence, in His function He became the prototype Christian. Yet, He remained fully cognizant of Who He really was.

That is why, as Colonel Thieme taught over and over again that Satan was tempting Jesus to take back up his powers of Deity when he presented starving Jesus the proposition that He should turn stones into bread. Satan knew Jesus could have turned the stones into bread with His own Deity if he chose to. Jesus chose not to take back up His power of Deity. Powers that He had to lay down in order to save us. Jesus had to refuse if He were to remain the perfect human sacrifice to die in our place as a man. For, if He took back up His power to be God? He would have disqualified Himself to be able to die in our place as a man. He would have ceased being as a man.

Yes.. OT saints were a 'type' of hupostatic union by being of both soul and human spirit. Being two different essences in one being. But, man is with one big difference. Our human spirit does not think and have a will of its own. Its a spiritual apparatus. On the other hand, the Soul of the Lord God of Israel did, and still does have a will of its own. "Not my will Father, but your will be done."

The Lord God in order to secure our atonement denied Himself His rightful place as being God. And, with the His soul and its abilities entered the body that had been prepared for Him. All the while..He did not forget Who He really was eternally while being as a man. He could not function as God which He really knew he was. Not, if He were to remain qualifying to be our perfect substitutionary sacrifice.

Philippians 2:6-8 presents what took place as the Lord God needed and volunteered to deny Himself his access of the powers of His Deity. It also reveals in the Greek that his Soul alone was uniquely eternal. For unlike our souls, his soul was eternally existing in the essence of God and never created. (will explain how that was possible later)

That is how I have seen the Colonel exegeted Philippians 2:6-8 to mean. http://www.syndein.com/Philippians_2.html

Grace and peace...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Gene, the red-bolded parts in your quote are very very very incorrect. Specifically, you're spouting the very false kenosis doctrine Thieme refuted, as well as reversing his constant stress that the Lord's soul was CREATED AT BIRTH. I must upbraid you for this. If you were misrepresented by someone else in public, you'd hope someone would come to your defense. You're misrepresenting both Bible and Thieme. I have to upbraid you for this.

So if you'll claim Thieme says something, please cite the class or lesson number, as each time you've made claims about what he said so far, you misstate what he said. Egregiously. Maybe you just remember incorrectly, but by now you've had time to revisit your claims, and clearly have not done so.

So one more time I must remind you, his kenosis classes re Philippians 2:5-10 are in the Philippians series on those verses, and they specifically refute what you're claiming. Moreover, the Hebrews series on Hebrews 10:5, the 1Cor series on 1Cor 15:45, and the Genesis series on Genesis 2:7 are also misrepresented by you. Reversed, by you. I could upload the very classes you abuse to prove the point, but the copyright rules by Berachah forbid me to do so. (I've uploaded classes before and they bid me remove them, even though the classes are free.) So to prove the point I can't provide the direct evidence, by upload. But those are the sources for the proof, which anyone can order from http://www.rbthieme.org . For free. Without worry they will be 'tracked', and no money-begging letters nor mailing lists.

THAT is the kind of 'citation' I'm asking you to provide, actual Thieme classes with the particular verses, so we can see both Bible AND the allegation you're making about what Thieme said or didn't say. Because clearly you totally misunderstand what he said, AND you misunderstand the very meaning of kenosis.


TO OTHERS: the refutation of what Genez says can be easily heard for yourself, or seen in Bible. Read in Greek, Philippians 2:5-10, then also Hebrews 10:5. If you want to see how Thieme exegetes/explains those verses, to show the Lord's soul was CREATED AT BIRTH -- just order the classes covering those verses, from http://www.rbthieme.org . The two series are Philippians and Hebrews, respectively. Best to order the whole series on mp3, since it's free and no one sells your name to some dippy mailing list, but you decide what YOU want. My concern, is that I have those classes and I know the teacher and Bible are being misrepresented (probably by accident, but one should not remain silent when this happens).

Here's why it matters: if the Lord's Soul were always eternal, then
a) there would be no human spirit, and
b) we couldn't be saved, because
c) there would be no truly HUMAN person to pay for sins.

So this reversal by Gene is as blasphemous as it gets, and he doesn't realize that fact. If Christ's soul weren't EXACTLY like yours (yet without sin, the main point in Hebrews 1-4), then you couldn't even be saved, nor could you grow up spiritually after salvation. For you need a human spirit to process spiritual information, since God is Spirit (John 4:24). You'll see in the entire Gospel of John that the Holy Spirit was governing/providing His Soul with Doctrine. Well, then the soul is a created thing, not eternal, for if eternal then instead His Own Godness would be controlling. But is not.

For, His Soul was made at birth, that's why He's the Last Adam, 1 Cor 15:45; notice the stress on 'made' (lit., became, not 'made', Greek verb ginomai, so CREATED, quoting Gen 2:7) -- by leaving it out in the Greek as parallel to first Adam, so both SOUL AND SPIRIT were made at birth, just as Gen 2:7. So then you can order the 1 Cor 15 classes and the Genesis 2 classes from http://www.rbthieme.org and hear for yourself, how he explains those verses; clearly again, refuting Gene's claims.

So then everywhere else in Bible, i.e., in 1John 2-3, you are told that the Spirit governs your soul also, when using 1John1:9. Just as, He did for Christ. So the big point of Bible is that God can make you LIKE CHRIST. Well, if His Soul were uniquely Eternal, that whole promise would be a lie. For your soul wouldn't be like Christ, so the base would not be like Christ, so nothing can be built on the base.

Thieme understood this better than any of the other teachers I can yet find, so spent most classes stressing the fact His Soul was created at Birth and that's why we CAN have a spiritual life and aren't zapped to heaven the minute after we're saved. There are many other teachers besides Thieme who know it, but they didn't stress the point as stridently as he did. So for Gene to allege Thieme taught what Gene wants to be true, must be challenged to defend a DEAD PASTOR who is being maligned (probably unintentionally).

Again, believe whatever you want. But when you cite a source and reverse what that source says, it's right for someone else to challenge you. I would hope that when I screw up the same way, God will send someone to challenge me. None of us always get a doctrine right. So this entire post is not meant personally against Gene or anyone else holding the same views.

I have to agree with Brainout here. Jesus was eligible to represent us because He became one of us. That meant His human soul had to be created at birth.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Maybe I am under a wrong assumption.

Did not the Colonel teach that the Hypostatic union was eternal?




It was what I heard when he taught Matthew 4. How Satan was tempting Jesus to take back up his powers of Deity to turn the stones into bread. That Jesus refused because he had to remain as a man in order to qualify to be our substitutionary atonement. He had to depend upon the Father and the Spirit for all his needs.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

It only meant he had to have a real soul. Nor, could he have a human father. So, not all things leading up to his humanity had to be the same as ours. What he ended up with, did have to be as one of us.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

@ Genez

As far as I know, RBT taught that the Hypostatic Union was a short dispensation of its own lasting from the birth of Christ to His ascension. I disagree, I'm leaning towards the idea that the entire Church Age is a state of Corporate Hypostasis that was instituted after the prototype Personal Hypostasis of Christ was completed in its testing phase and approved by the Father.

If my assumption above is correct, then it would make sense that Hypostasis began at birth, since it in itself is was a prototype state of being.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But genetically speaking, Jesus did have a human father. He was the Son of Man (in Hebrew man is adam). So Jesus is last Adam. Jesus had to be fully human in the genetic sense and spiritual sense. The meant He had to have body, soul, and spirit.

IF Yehwah-Elohim had a human soul prior to human birth, THEN human birth would NOT have been necessary. In such a scenario, Christ simply would've had to materialize in the form of a man and go to the cross...but that isn't how it happened.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Re your text which I bolded and put in green. You mistake the eternality of Deity with the Hypostatic Union coming to exist. So no, the HU is not eternal in the sense of no beginning, but in the sense of no ending. I put the Illustrations.pdf link in the Research Forum on RB Thieme to which you responded, suggest you download it and search on 'Hypostatic Union' to find the classes you need as refreshers or to hear for the first time. Or, just THINK about what it means, Hypostatic UNION.

Greek word hupostasis, one thing standing under another. Doesn't require the thing over, to have also always existed.

RBT also drew a parallel between the Alpha-Omega and the "Yehwah Eloheynu, Yehwah ehhad" (Lord is God, Lord is the unique one) statements.

He said the Alpha Glory was Yehwah Eloheynu (Lord is God).

The Omega Glory is Yehwah ehhad (the unique Hypostatic Union of Christ).

This implied that Hypostatic Union began at virgin birth.

This was in his 1981(?) series on Revelation if I remember correctly.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

We must consider something then.. The great "Sh'mah" was being sung in Jewish synagogues long before the Incarnation took place. That passage has been exegeted many times. Its declaring the Lord God to be Unique. Adonai Echad. (The Jews used the word Adonai instead of Yahweh. )
Deuteronomy 6:4...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Curious... when speaking of the hypostaic union? May I ask, what does that means to you? Why should Jesus have ceased to still be a hypostatic union? The short dispensation itself was was the earthly manifestation in a human body of this earth. Yet, the Lord still maintains two natures right now in Heaven. His body is no longer the same dust of this earth that is doomed to perish, yet He now possesses a glorious body of Heaven. At present His body is resting (sitting), and His Deity is doing the work. While on earth it was the opposite. His humanity did the work while His Deity rested from enabling His humanity. He has not stopped having two natures.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

@ Genez

I was referring to the Hypostatic Union as a dispensation on earth. I realize the Lord is still hypostatic today in heaven. Sorry, I wasn't expressing myself very clearly.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

That is why I presented the proposition that the Son of God has always been a hypostatic union. For He has always been the Way to the Father, and the point of Salvation as the Lord God of Israel in the OT. Now, if what was said about the Lord God of Israel actually possessing a second nature of a Soul? Then ... as far as I can tell. It eloquently explains the mechanics of how the Lord God of Israel was able to make Himself to become as a man. For Deity can not be ignorant. Deity can not learn anything as to grow. Yet. Jesus as a man was said to grow in grace and wisdom as a child.


Luke 2:52 (as revealed in the RBT Ministry approved translation found online http://www.syndein.com/books.htm



2:52~~And Jesus kept on increasing in wisdom {sophia} and stature {physical strength},
and in grace {charis} . . . from the immediate source of God and mankind {anthropos} -
(meaning human communicators of the Word).


(His Humanity studied and learned Doctrine because by His own free will, He agreed not to use His own Deity in the incarnation.)

Jesus on earth spoke of eternity past in Heaven as if He knew it first hand. As seen in John 17:5.


5~~ "And now, Father, glorify Me by the side of Yourself
{a command to be seated at the right side of the Father based on
knowledge of His will} with the glory I had beside You
before the world/universe {cosmos} existed/'was created'."


As far as I can reason.. John 17:5 was not speaking of His Deity being glorified by the Father. For His Deity is God. There is no glory one can add to God's own glory. Yet, it is God who gives glory. The Son who is having two natures.. It was God's Soul that was in the position to be given that glory. Hence, the Soul that became as the man Jesus was with the God from the beginning.

Please, keep in mind. I am presenting this understanding for your consideration... Not as a dogmatic declaration.


Leviticus 26:10-12

'You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new.
Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul
will not reject you.'I will also walk among you and
be your God, and you shall be My people."



Judges 10:16

And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst
and to serve Jehovah, so that his soul became
impatient because of the trouble of Israel.



Psalm 11:5

Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one,
and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates.



.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

@ Genez

Here is a problem that I see. The average human soul is created and imputed to the body at birth (breath of life). Yehwah-Elohim was Jesus in His preincarnate deity. If Yehwah-Elohim had a human soul from the start, that would mean His human soul had to forget omniscience to fulfill the doctrine of kenosis.

So either Yehwah-Elohim erased the memory of His own human soul only to re-learn the fullness of doctrine in His incarnation as Jesus...

OR, Yehwah-Elohim created a human soul for Himself and imputed it into the fetus of Jesus at birth.

It boils down to whether or not Jesus' soul was created as a new, empty vessel or an overridden hard drive.

I don't see the point in forgetting for the purpose of learning again.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

A human soul can not remember omniscience, let alone retain it. The Son's Soul was always enabled by His Deity's omniscience and power.. causing His soul to know anything and everything he needed to know, as it was to be known.

Being the Lord God of Israel His Soul did not have to figure, nor think through any problems taking place on earth. For His Deity was always enabling and causing His Soul to be knowing everything needed. His Soul and what Deity was giving Him, were always One. There was no lack of trust in the Soul of God for God. No questions asked... Instantly knowing all He needed to know at all times.

I will try this... Let's say you lose your ability to walk temporarily? You can remember being able to walk. But remembering such will not make you able to walk. Likewise.. The Soul of Jesus could remember what it was like to be totally enabled by His Deity. But, because he had to become as a man? He could "no longer walk" simply because He remembered what He was before the Incarnation.

While on earth He had to remain constantly denying Himself His right to function as God as long as he still needed to die in our place. He had to remain as a man in every way until after our sins were paid for.



A Soul can not retain omniscience after its removed within its own power. That would mean His soul was deity if his Soul could, and not having two natures. Look at us! We are souls. And we can not even learn doctrine properly unless we are filled with the Spirit. For, the Spirit is enabling us with power to grasp what our soul alone could not. When you are in fellowship? You can comprehend and retain, and then recall. But? If you are living in sin? Your same soul loses its spiritual function without the filling of the Spirit. Jesus never sinned. Jesus volunteered not to depend upon His own Deity for His self sufficiency. The agreement was ... He was to remain dependent upon the Father and Holy Spirit for all His needs. And, in doing so? He was forging ahead as the author and finisher of our faith.



A soul that depends upon Deity to function in Deity's omniscience can not retain that same omniscience if the Deity removes the enabling to receive Deity's omniscience. The Soul of God (The Son) had been given an enabled access by God to know all that can be known about God by a Soul. We in our present state can not dream, nor imagine such a state of being. Heck.. man can not even know what its like to get high until he tried what would get him high (speaking for myself, of course). It could not be imagined until enabled to experience what it is.



For starters ,,, He had to learn how to live without Omniscience supplying His every thought need. In God he never had to go through the process of memory and recall. All He ever needed to know was always there and running through His mind.. and all the power He needed to make it work was always being supplied.

Before the Incarnation He never had to solve a problem. The answer was implemented instantaneously. To be born of Mary he agreed to let go of all the Divine ultra luxury He had basked in while being a Soul that was fully baptized into God, enabling Him see God to the fullest extent a Soul could ever see Deity. For, God the Father fully entrusted His Soul to everything about God a Soul could ever see, know, and experience. That is why Jesus is our point of contact with the Father.

We learn a little bit at a time about God because we need to learn to have integrity and become transformed into righteous trustworthiness before God. Many Christians fail in that matter. Many settle for wood, hay, and stubble. To them its not worth the trouble and pain.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)