Evidence for God from Science

I have recently come across a new idea (at least new to me). I was wondering if it sounds like it has scriptural basis. Or if there is any scripture to refute this idea.

The idea is that prior to the birth of Jesus, The son was spirit only, except for the times in the OT when He manifested Himself to be seen as a man.

But that after His resurrection, His physical nature is that of always being in a glorified body for the rest of eternity.

The reasoning that I heard behind this thought is that to pay the eternal wage for our sins, there must be an eternal payment and that His death on the cross was just the closing of the contractual agreement. There had to be an eternal cost to pay for an eternal price.

Where Jesus is on the cross, and said, "It is finished", was saying that the contract was completed and could not be changed. But the Son would still have a different existence for the rest of eternity.

I am not sure what to believe about this idea. I do not see any glaring problems with it. If it is true, then it would cause me to love Jesus even more, because his sacrifice was an eternal one, greater than anyone can even possibly imagine.

Mind you, I am not saying that this would in any way change His position as the second person of the Trinity. But, according to 1 Cor 15:28, there seems to be some change in the relationship between the Father and the Son, after the 1000 years reign of Christ.

Quote:
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

I have heard that this word "subject" is a military term which means to "rank under".

Any thoughts. Realize I am not arguing for or against this. I would just like some input. But keep it scriptural.

Thanks

One of the Key passages that will have to be incorporated into any discussion on these issues will be Phil 2:1-11.

The key concepts will be the hypostatic union, which is the whole premise of Jesus being both Fully Man and Fully God and of course, the whole doctrine of the incarnation in which God became flesh.

TIe all of that into the Trinity and you've got a tall order. In one sense, Christ's incarnation can only be as limiting as his ability to work as the third member of the Holy Spirit (who is also at times referred to as the Spirit of Christ.)

Christ's Divinity is established in part by his sharing the immutable attributes of God which include His Eternal existance, (without beginning and without end) and his omnipresence. The whole concept of Phil 2 is that Christ emptied himself of His rightful claims to certain attributes of God necessary in order to become fully Human, while not emptying Himself of the divine nature or substance that in fact made Him God.

In my opinion, based on these issues and that passage, if there is too much focus upon those elements of Christ unique to the 2nd person on the Trinity to the extent that Christ is seen as limited, then what is taking place is too high a level of separation of the persons to where there is failure to recognize the one-ness within the arrangement that does not outright limit the work of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit collectively through those attributes.

It's a hard concept and it will not translate into a purely logical explanation because the whole mystery of the Trinity shrouds it. Usually in these situations where we get into trouble is in how we frame the question. The question itself usually presupposes something that seems logical to us in the framework of our limitations and experience, but then God is outside of those so the question itself presumes too much.

Hope this helps. It's not intended to be a detailed precise answer but maybe it will help as a 30,000 foot fly over.

Blessings,

Bart

Canuckster
Thanks for the response but it was way over my head. (30,000 foot fly over)

But if I understand you correctly.....
You are saying, that we would have to make too much of an assumption about the makeup of the Trinity, to come to the conclusion that Jesus death was only the beginning of the payment for our sins, and that there had to be an eternal payment to pay for an eternal judgement. Correct?

YLTYLT wrote:Canuckster
Thanks for the response but it was way over my head. (30,000 foot fly over)

But if I understand you correctly.....
You are saying, that we would have to make too much of an assumption about the makeup of the Trinity, to come to the conclusion that Jesus death was only the beginning of the payment for our sins, and that there had to be an eternal payment to pay for an eternal judgement. Correct?

I think what I'm saying is that you'd have to minimize the Trinity and assume limitations upon Christ that fail to recognize that God works through all three.

In terms of the payment for sins and salvation, I believe it was once and for all. The usage of the word which we translate to English as "It is Finished" is communicated in the precise sense that the payment was made once and for all at a specific point and time with sufficiency moving forward to meet all future claims and demands. In fact, the word was used in the same manner in common society for a debt that was paid or a jail term that was served.

I believe with the incarnation of Christ, there is indication that Christ is in a post-resurrection body which is a preview of that which we have to look forward to and there clearly is a physical element to it as demonstrated by Christ's eating fish in the disciples presence as well as Thomas feeling the nailprints in his hands.

To emphasize that however in the sense of that being an ongoing payment or consequence of Christ's payment on our behalf, assumes more than I believe the concept of the Trinity allows. The Holy Spirit is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ and functions fully without any limitations. Any time we try to isolate one member of the Trinity and define or limit that member in isolation, we then fail to recognize that the Trinity does not allow for that degree of separation without introducing some historic heresies.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your question but that's what I'm trying to say.

Blessings,

Bart

I believe that Jesus before He was incarnate was Spirit...which make the idea of the trinity a little easier for me to grasp, being that God is Spirit as is the Holy Spirit... but Jesus will have a resurrected body like ours for all of eternity...I almost said physical, but I'm not sure I want to extend myself that far. All I know is people are going to look upon the one whom they have crucified, which to me would indicate something more than spirit.

As for Jesus' payment being eternal, I would say no, the payment was not eternal, but the ramifications are...as are his office of prophet priest and king. Jesus is after all "the same yesterday, today and forever", right?

I admit these are just my thoughts, so don't hold me to them.

This is a very thought provoking question, YLTYLT, I'm sure it will invoke some pretty interesting responses. I hope so anyway.

FFC wrote:I believe that Jesus before He was incarnate was Spirit...which make the idea of the trinity a little easier for me to grasp, being that God is Spirit as is the Holy Spirit... but Jesus will have a resurrected body like ours for all of eternity...I almost said physical, but I'm not sure I want to extend myself that far. All I know is people are going to look upon the one whom they have crucified, which to me would indicate something more than spirit.

As for Jesus' payment being eternal, I would say no, the payment was not eternal, but the ramifications are...as is his office of prophet priest and king. Jesus is after all "the same yesterday, today and forever", right?

I admit these are just my thoughts, so don't hold me to them.

This is a very thought provoking question, YLTYLT, I'm sure it will invoke some pretty interesting responses. I hope so anyway.

'The undivided Trinity' — is a term that sums up the mystery of God's essence for me.

Next, how I understand things mentioned so far on this thread can be summed up as:

Jesus — 'God and man reconciled.'

That phrase helps me put Jesus' divinity [2nd person of the Trinity] and his humanity in a perspective I can understand and explore.

Hope this helps
-
-
-

before Jesus was full man and full God or became incarnate (eather way), he is refured to as "the Angel of the Lord"

Charles Vrike wrote:before Jesus was full man and full God or became incarnate (eather way), he is refured to as "the Angel of the Lord"

If by saying angel you mean devine messenger then I agree.

FFC wrote:

Charles Vrike wrote:before Jesus was full man and full God or became incarnate (eather way), he is refured to as "the Angel of the Lord"

If by saying angel you mean devine messenger then I agree.

That is exactily what I ment.