Absolutely, Elle. And I do see a potential conundrum here, one that already has me pulling my locks.

William

Elle, do you buy that Christ was both divine and human at the same time? As God, He couldn't die, but as man, He could. This would be similar to saying that as God, He could not be tempted, but as man, He could be. Would you disagree with this as well?

I buy what the Bible tells me. The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God. I don't buy anymore that he had immortality, omni-presence, etc... The Bible does not say that. As far as I read scripture, Jesus had to rely 100% on the father. Through the father, he had insight, power, etc.. just like we can have insight, power throught Jesus. And Jesus died a man's death.

I don't know, about "Jesus as God, he could not be tempted". Is there any scripture that says that?

Have you studied about what scriptures reveals versus Jesus being "begotten"? What does it mean that Jesus was in the Bossom of the Father before creation?

Anyway this is off topic, and should move to the "Immortality and Jesus death..." thread if there's something significant that can be added.

so where is this "public domain"? who do i have to read in order to get this information?



just did.

shouldnt make assumptions of another. its not nice. it is in essence calling me a liar and accusing me of playing games.
someone else did something similar to me because i wouldnt believe some trinity definition he made up and insisted it should be believed. not nice. the ninth commandment comes to mind.

by the way, i understand the vatican library is online now. i havent read it either. there is quite a bit i havent come across or read.



why on earth would i do that?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We all intend to buy what the Bible tells us, but we have differences of opinion, so clearly we're not all doing so. Actually, I'm quite certain that none of us really buys what the Bible tells us, in terms of our beliefs being 100% in harmony with Scripture.



Of course He wasn't omnipresent, but the Bible certainly says He was immortal. Jesus said, "I am the life and the resurrection." It's hard to see how one could understand this saying of Christ's in such a way that did not involve His being immortal.



He had to rely upon the Father to be an example for us, to meet the lies of the enemy, and to reveal God to us in a way that would be meaningful to us, but He could have overcome in His own right had He chosen to do so. Christ is the creator. Surely One who created the Universe is not limited in power. (I'm assuming you agree that Scripture teaches that Christ is the Creator. If not, we can discuss this point.)



James 1 says that God cannot be tempted. Hebrews 4:15 says that Christ was tempted as we are tempted. So if Jesus is both God and man, it would follow that as God He could not be tempted, but as man He could be.



There's not a lot in Scripture about this. Mostly things John wrote, and Proverbs 8 come to mind. Here's what I think makes sense.

Before creating sentient beings, there was no need for God (i.e. the Godhead) to have a representative. Once God decided to create, it was necessary for there to be a representative for God for these creatures. Christ was the One designated to do this work. He would represent the Father to the Universe. For angels, He was "Michael, the archangel." Had man not sinned, perhaps He would have remained in this role.

At any rate, I understand that "in the bosom of the Father" is referring to the relationship Jesus had with the Father before creation. Since we are creatures of space-time, and before creation neither space nor time had been created, it's not possible for us to conceptualize what this existence would have been like, so I think Jesus used an expression that we could relate to in some intuitive way to describe it.

I think Christ's being begotten is dealing with the time when He proceeded from the Father in His role as representative for the beings that would be created.

Hi TQ: I believe the term "public domain" is referencing the information available to the public at large. For example, regular folk like you and I have easy access to the internet, an online library, a bookstore, the courthouse, and so on. Hope that helped.

William

Arnold: I perhaps shouldn't have been so aggressive, chap, and maybe I put you on the defensive with my reference to original sin. I'm actually intrigued to see what you/we conclude on the quotation's interpretation, even though I believe I have a firm hold on its meaning and application.

That said, analyzing theological minutiae is obviously your talent and Tom's (et al), which is why I've so enjoyed these discussions. As I've previously alluded to, I actually detest devilish details, and will only dissect things when forced to.

Again, hope I didn't come across too overbearing, thus putting you on the defensive. I'm sure you'll let us know what you discover at your convenience.

William

i should have been more clear i guess since i know what public domain means, such as "the vatican library is online, for instance" which would mean anyone can access it now. where in the public domain is said info that it was assumed i already knew.

You could find a lot of things with Google.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=30 is a site to look for.

http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteousness-by-faith is another site to look through.

thank you. yes, i have already come across this by bert haloviak. i havent read what he has to say, tho. how do i know he is not biased and trying to get me to come to some conclusion?



i already know how to find jones and waggoner.

anyway, somehow weve gotten offtrack, yet again. several times it has gotten offtrack from my original question. my original question was on page 107 #112156 and has gone in strange directions for such a simple question.