Akha Paul & Andrew,
Nice try, but I'm not biting on this.
First of all, you both beg the question by assuming that a reference to our Lord's humanity indicates its own qnoma , and then his Deity indicates its own separate and distinct qnoma , so that this Person (and at least we can agree that Yeshua Meshiaka is a Person) has two qnomas.
To you, a qnoma is an occurrence of a nature , therefore, you interpret any mention of a person's nature to have it's qnoma. I do not see a qnoma as anything less than "self", whether animate or inanimate (himself, itself, herself). If in reference to a person, then that self would be a center of consciousness- a mind or a spirit; That would be the person himself.
Two qnome would be two persons; Our Lord never said that He has two qnome; He only refers to one in John 5:26.
(How do you know which qnoma He refers to here? I would think the Divine qnoma already had life in it by its very nature.)
The incarnation means "
God became human". In so doing He had to change His form (Greek has "schemata', from which English derives "schematic") from The Divine to the mortal Human servant. Philippians 2 says that "
He divested Himself"; Hebrews 2 says "
He became lower than the angels" for the suffering of death. Neither text says that He put on humanity as a cloak.
By the way, if The Son (The Divine qnoma)became lower than the angels for the suffering of death, then that Divine qnoma came to die.
John says "God became flesh", flesh signifying humanity.
He no longer was in The Divine form; His identity was still the same, but no longer was He omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. If we were to believe that He retained all these attributes, then we would have to believe that from infancy, there would have been two centers of consciousness in Him, one that knew all things, and one that knew practically nothing.
That is unthinkable, and is tantamount to saying there were two persons in one body with the same name.
The Council of Chalcedon states
Quote:there is no division between His Natures,
yet I hear and read so much that indicates Christians believe otherwise, including you both.
To say that Jesus suffered in His humanity but not in His Divine being sounds like Multiple Personality Disorder , at the very least. Perhaps it is sheer Gnosticism, which teaches that "
He" really is "
They".
Prove to me that every living qnoma is not either a "He" or a "She" , and I will listen further to what you have to say on this matter.
As to 1 Cor. 11:27, Andrew, your explanation is just another example of your sophistry, as I expected. I suppose swine's blood would have done as well for the "Blood of Jehovah" , according to your way of interpreting this passage .
Quote:"All blood is therefore God's blood."
That is an outrage. This does not strike me as the teaching of God's Spirit.
Shelikha Paul is discussing the blood and body of God and those who partake of the bread and wine unworthily , thus eating and drinking damnation , not discerning
Jehovah's body , and you have the audacity to say that the "
blood of Jehovah" simply means all blood is His blood, because He has no blood of His own ?
Here is a passage that says "Jehovah's blood" , and we are to believe you when you flatly contradict the word of God ? If Paul meant that Jehovah had no blood, he had one hell of a way of saying it !
Surely he could have used the phrase , "The Blood of Yeshua" , or "the blood of Meshika", so as not to confuse the unlearned.
He wrote ,"
The blood of Jehovah".That means what it says. Jehovah shed His blood for the sins of the world, is the message of the Lord's supper.
You are really struggling to defend the indefensible here.
God Himself , in The Person of Marya Yeshua, made the sacrifice for sin with His own blood and His own death for all mankind.
That is what the gospel is.Nothing less would avail for the atonement of the sins of the world-
Glory to His Name, Hallelu-JAH !
If that is Paul's meaning in Cor. , what's the problem with "God's blood" in Acts 20:28 ? Is not all blood God's blood in Acts as in 1 Cor. 11:27 ?
And please do not compare Jesus with "the Angel of The LORD" in the OT. Jehovah's Name is not in Him or on Him-
He is Jehovah ! He sent the angel of Jehovah and put His Name on the angel ! All angels are His and he sends them, and they worship Him !There are so many passages that show this.
Hebrews 1 asks the question: To which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son... ?"
The Son created the angels !
Yeshua is Jehovah, therefore it is proper to say that what Yeshua did, Jehovah did. This is not complicated. "Jesus died" is the same as saying "God died".
Theologians like to complicate things to justify their existence; frankly , we don't need theologians; we need disciples who believe in our LORD Jesus and obey His words.
Andrew,you should practice law or start selling bridges.You would be great at both !
Sorry, I would have to give up so much faith and life to believe what you do that it would require a death on my part. I have been through much in my 51 years- 27 years an ordained minister , husband of a beautiful and wonderful woman,and father of twelve beautiful and wonderful children and Grandfather of two.
I have paid a price for my beliefs and been rejected by several churches after preaching the word for a time. My position has been hammered out on the anvil of trial and opposition and forged in heaven. I cannot deny what God has revealed to me and proven in the lab of life. I have seen Him and heard his voice. I cannot go back.
I still do not understand what your views of the atonement are. What was the atoning work whose merits satisfied the requirements for removing the sins of the world ?
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]
Fxrwb[/font]