RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father

RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/27/2008 11:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius I am not disagreeing with your post per se as it stands against Bob. I did want more from you though about this paragraph above. You suggest that "earnest study" is what brings about this doctrine yet Scripture declares it, you presumed the trinity of three, within one being. It is without human comprehension but is declared? I am not sure if the meanings of those terms are really compatible. God created everything from nothing. I don't know how this happened. The mechanisms are most likely beyond human comprehension. The methods by which God acts in creation are beyond human study. Scripture non-the-less does declare that God is the creator of everything, and that nothing exists outside of His creating it. It also tells us that God has acted and continues to act in creation. What God has done is declared, but God does not tell us the exact method by which He has done it. I don't know exactly how God parted the red sea, or how He raised Lazarus from the dead. I don't know the method by which God formed the stars, or how He made the lame walk again. However, I do know that He did do all this, and that study of the scriptures will reveal it to be true that He did. There are many things that the human mind cannot comprehend. I hold that no man can fully comprehend grace, and how God can love us and die for us while we are still sinners. I understand that He does, and I am very pleased with that truth. However, such a love is something I am constantly learning new things about. Anyone who claims to fully understand the love of God has surely puffed themselves up with false knowledge. In addition to creation and love, I also do not fully comprehend eternity, but I surely believe that the life that God offers to believers is eternal, without end, and that God is eternal, without beginning or end. It is similar with God who eternally exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is God and I am not. I do not understand the full nature of God. His thoughts and ways are above my thoughts and ways. That I do not fully comprehend the triune God yet still know the Bible declares it to be true is no more troubling than my not knowing how to make a goat from scratch (Job 38). Just as I can declare God to be the creator of everything, without knowing how to put the constellations in their place, I can also declare God to be triune, without knowing everything there is to know about God's nature. Scripture declares that God created everything, even though it doesn't contain a technical manual on how to duplicate it, and scripture declares certain things about the nature of God, summed up on the word trinity, that are true, even if God could not be summed up in a book that filled the earth in a mountain of pages. quote: Also, is a person a being, or at least has being? Does God have three eternal sub-beings then? Or is there some problem here with word the word persons in relation to God's singular being. The terms "person" and "being" are not interchangeable. Nor are the terms "man"/"human" and "person", not when speaking about theological issues. Some of the most applicable, though not perfect, definitions of these words: being "substance or nature" or "something that exists" person "a self-conscious or rational being" (referring to a different definition of being, "conscious, mortal existence; life") or "the actual self or individual personality" or "an individual of specified character" or "the composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self." Not that any of these words are perfect. They are, after all, describing concepts beyond their original usage. A human has existence, has being. A human exists as a single person. A single being of a single person. Humanity is many beings and many persons. God has existence, a single existence, as a single God. However, God's being is not a single person. God exists as three persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are indeed one being, the LORD. God's very nature is to exist as one who can say "I AM WHO I AM". However, scripture also shows us that there is distinction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each is shown to have their own mind, their own thoughts, their own will, their own characteristics. Not only that, but they are shown to have this relationship within their singular being, independent of creation and anything outside of the LORD. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are shown to be eternally who they are, to eternally be one LORD who exists as the three "persons" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Sabellius -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/28/2008 12:03:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Not that any of these words are perfect. They are, after all, describing concepts beyond their original usage. Wow, we got here quick. I think you essentially said that God is one being and is simultaneously three self-conscious beings. All co-equal for sure...then could the Father become Incarnate? Just for sake of example here. If not doesn't the Father kind of become like the head or possibly an origin, rather than a co-equal self-conscious subsistence? I would totally agree with your quoted statement too. Objective meaning is rare. It is quite the concession.

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/28/2008 12:45:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Not that any of these words are perfect. They are, after all, describing concepts beyond their original usage. Wow, we got here quick. I think you essentially said that God is one being and is simultaneously three self-conscious beings. All co-equal for sure...then could the Father become Incarnate? Just for sake of example here. If not doesn't the Father kind of become like the head or possibly an origin, rather than a co-equal self-conscious subsistence? See, this is why it's necessary to have specialized vocabulary for theological discussion. Just like the Holy Spirit is not just a lung-full of air, despite the Hebrew and Greek for spirit meaning breath or wind, the theological useage of person or being is not exactly the same as the secular usage. Asking if the Father could become Incarnate is an absurdity. The Father did not. God has reasons for sending the Son, and not the Father. Just as God had reason for redeeming humanity instead of destroying us. Could He have destroyed us in our sin, instead of sending His Son? That's just as absurd a question. He did not because it is not what He did, and His nature is to be loving and patient, as well as just. As for the Father as the head, He is. The Father is the head of the Son. There is a difference between the ontological nature of the trinity, and the economic nature of the trinity. Ontology is a word that is concerned with the essential nature of things. In this respect the trinity is exactly the same. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all ontologically the same. They are deity, they are LORD, they are God, all made up of the same kind of "stuff", and more than that made up of the exact same "stuff". (Humanity is made up of a single kind of stuff, but each human has his/her own stuff). Economy is a word that is concerned with the management of systems (most commonly monetary, but in this case not). The functions of the three persons of God are not identical. Despite the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all having the essential nature of being LORD, they each relate to each other, and to creation, in different ways. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are organized in the economic nature of the trinity. The Father is greater than the Son, who is greater than the Spirit, but this is not a difference in their essential natures, but a difference in the way that they function. How is this possible? I don't know. Scripture declares it to be true. Not in those exact words, but I find "sound bite" Christianity to be a poor substitute for the real thing. The Apostles did not resort to believing that every truth needed to be summed up in a single quote of scripture. In fact, if you'll read the Epistles, you'll find many many passages of OT scripture quoted. With verses pulled from across the Law and the Prophets to prove the points that the Apostles were making in their letters. Not only that, but the prophecies of Christ come from the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the various books of the prophets, the histories and even from Proverbs. There is solid foundation for considering the whole of scripture when forming doctrine. I realize it's tempting to want to dismiss what I've said because I've used words you've never heard, or used them in ways you're not familar with. I know it's tempting to dismiss what I've said because you don't think I can back up any of this with a single verse of scripture (and I can't, but I can back it all up with lots of scripture). I know it's tempting to want a god that you can fully understand, but that's not the LORD. God is greater than we are, but He has told us a great deal about Himself. What Scripture tells about God is true, even if it seems to be contradictory to human understanding. Nicodemus asked "How can a man be born when he is old?" He did not know that his preconceptions were keeping him from understanding what Jesus Christ was saying. You say "How can three be one?". Jesus Christ answered "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" So I echo His words. Don't be amazed when I tell you that God is triune. Look for the truth of scripture, even if it is a shocking truth that makes you ask "How can this be?" quote: I would totally agree with your quoted statement too. Objective meaning is rare. It is quite the concession. I'm not talking about objective meaning. God is true, regardless of what language we use to talk about Him. What I am saying is that it is hard to talk spiritual things using language that originated in talking about earthly things. That's why God used a lot of parables. The kingdom of heaven is not literally a pearl in a field, but that parable does tell us certain truths about the kingdom. The kingdom is true, and really does exist, it is objectively true, and God had specific meaning in comparing it to a pearl of great price, however, there are things about a pearl in a field that are not exactly like the kingdom (for instance, a pearl has a finite value, the kingdom does not). Just because the parables are just metaphors does not mean that they lack objective meaning. The same is true for words used in theological discussions. Just as each parable has specific meanings about the truth God is trying to tell us, so certain words have specific meanings when used in a certain manner. There are theological dictionaries out there that seek to define "person", "being" and many others but I don't have one handy, and I tend to let scripture show how the words are being used in relation to scripture. Theology is hardly the only pursuit that requires specialized language. For instance, did you know that in the culinary world there is a difference between the concepts of "flavor" and "taste"? Now, an average person might use the words interchangeably, and become highly confused by tasting specialist using them in their technical manner. There are many other pursuits that use words in specific way. A engineer or technician working with viscosity will use the word "slump" in a very different way than someone describing a teenager's posture. "Slump" as a measure of consistency is used for a variety of substances, from ketchup to concrete. Even though my dictionary has an entry for "slump" in regards to concrete, it doesn't give a comprehensive definition, certainly not one that would in any way be adequate to actually apply. The same applies to theological usage. Just as someone who wants to measure ketchup needs a better definition than the dictionary provides for "slump", so too does someone who wants to study Christian doctrine need a better definition of "person" or "being" than the dictionary provides. And, just as "slump" has objective meaning when describing the movement of ketchup (but little objective meaning when describing slumped shoulders), so too can "being" have objective meaning when used in theological arguments (but not when thrown about willy-nilly as you have been.)

Sabellius -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/28/2008 10:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez See, this is why it's necessary to have specialized vocabulary for theological discussion. Just like the Holy Spirit is not just a lung-full of air, despite the Hebrew and Greek for spirit meaning breath or wind, the theological useage of person or being is not exactly the same as the secular usage. Asking if the Father could become Incarnate is an absurdity. The Father did not. God has reasons for sending the Son, and not the Father. Just as God had reason for redeeming humanity instead of destroying us. Could He have destroyed us in our sin, instead of sending His Son? That's just as absurd a question. He did not because it is not what He did, and His nature is to be loving and patient, as well as just. Figmentpez, please don't think my questions are asked because I do not know. They are asked because I do know. Maybe you'll understand that later. Anyways, yes it is true that to believe what you do you do need specially created vocabulary. Also the term person should overlap but because of the incomprehension of what the Cappodocians have given us we concede to charades. Asking if the Father could be incarnate is not absurd. It is difficult for you to reply to yes, but not absurd. If it is indeed possible then you have really made somethings really unnecessary. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez How is this possible? I don't know. Scripture declares it to be true. Not in those exact words You are exactly right. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez I realize it's tempting to want to dismiss what I've said because I've used words you've never heard, or used them in ways you're not familar with. I know it's tempting to dismiss what I've said because you don't think I can back up any of this with a single verse of scripture (and I can't, but I can back it all up with lots of scripture). I know it's tempting to want a god that you can fully understand, but that's not the LORD. God is greater than we are, but He has told us a great deal about Himself. What Scripture tells about God is true, even if it seems to be contradictory to human understanding. Assuming. It really does something for a person, not becoming though. It would probably be best not to assume me nascent friend. We cannot fully understand God. I have not suggested we do so, and many of your words are an attempt to discredit. In the end though you are really only attempting to answer your own dilemma. God has told us a great deal about Himself, and yet He does not do so to confuse us. He relates to us in way we understand, i.e. the Incarnation. You suggest that the properties of the Trinity are mysterious but indeed declared in the whole of Scripture but we cannot be sure because there is really no verse that deals with them explicitly. That is why I suggest we go with what the text does indeed say, and not what we infer. A very large difference. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Nicodemus asked "How can a man be born when he is old?" He did not know that his preconceptions were keeping him from understanding what Jesus Christ was saying. You say "How can three be one?". Jesus Christ answered "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" So I echo His words. Don't be amazed when I tell you that God is triune. Look for the truth of scripture, even if it is a shocking truth that makes you ask "How can this be?" That is cliche, but then again you are really adding meaning to the text. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Theology is hardly the only pursuit that requires specialized language. For instance, did you know that in the culinary world there is a difference between the concepts of "flavor" and "taste"? Now, an average person might use the words interchangeably, and become highly confused by tasting specialist using them in their technical manner. There are many other pursuits that use words in specific way. A engineer or technician working with viscosity will use the word "slump" in a very different way than someone describing a teenager's posture. "Slump" as a measure of consistency is used for a variety of substances, from ketchup to concrete. Even though my dictionary has an entry for "slump" in regards to concrete, it doesn't give a comprehensive definition, certainly not one that would in any way be adequate to actually apply. The same applies to theological usage. Just as someone who wants to measure ketchup needs a better definition than the dictionary provides for "slump", so too does someone who wants to study Christian doctrine need a better definition of "person" or "being" than the dictionary provides. And, just as "slump" has objective meaning when describing the movement of ketchup (but little objective meaning when describing slumped shoulders), so too can "being" have objective meaning when used in theological arguments (but not when thrown about willy-nilly as you have been.) I realize these things, however their meanings are within their respective ranges. The range of person does not include three beings within one being. You are trying to make some be that is simply not congruent human comprehension or human terms. God related to us as a man because He wanted to communicate to us Himself in a way we could understand. God does not seek to confuse us, theologians attempt that.

bob97 -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 12:42:54 AM)
I�ve been pondering the following verses from Proverbs 8 and find them very interesting in light of this discussion of the Trinity. 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. 24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, NIV Here are some points that one might conclude from the above verses. 1: This person was brought forth as the first of Gods works. 2: This person was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. 3: This person was given birth before creation. 4: This person was the craftsman at his side and rejoiced in his presence before creation. Bob

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 4:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Figmentpez, please don't think my questions are asked because I do not know. They are asked because I do know. Maybe you'll understand that later. Anyways, yes it is true that to believe what you do you do need specially created vocabulary. Also the term person should overlap but because of the incomprehension of what the Cappodocians have given us we concede to charades. Asking if the Father could be incarnate is not absurd. It is difficult for you to reply to yes, but not absurd. If it is indeed possible then you have really made somethings really unnecessary. I understand that you think you have the answer because you believe, contrary to scripture, that the Father did become incarnate. Answers are only valuable if they are true. Your doctrine is heresy, and your belief that the Father became incarnate is false. quote: Assuming. It really does something for a person, not becoming though. It would probably be best not to assume me nascent friend. We cannot fully understand God. I have not suggested we do so, and many of your words are an attempt to discredit. In the end though you are really only attempting to answer your own dilemma. God has told us a great deal about Himself, and yet He does not do so to confuse us. He relates to us in way we understand, i.e. the Incarnation. You suggest that the properties of the Trinity are mysterious but indeed declared in the whole of Scripture but we cannot be sure because there is really no verse that deals with them explicitly. That is why I suggest we go with what the text does indeed say, and not what we infer. A very large difference. Well, you can claim that trintitarian doctrine is inference all you want. What remains is that trinitarian doctrine is in line with what scripture teaches about the nature of God, while "oneness" is at odds with scripture, and is wholely contrary to the revealed nature of God. quote: I realize these things, however their meanings are within their respective ranges. The range of person does not include three beings within one being. You are trying to make some be that is simply not congruent human comprehension or human terms. God related to us as a man because He wanted to communicate to us Himself in a way we could understand. God does not seek to confuse us, theologians attempt that. Would you say that the word "body" has within it's range thousands of individuals throughout the world? After all, a body refers to the flesh of a single human or animal. How on earth could "body" apply to all believers at all times in all places? That's the second word from scripture I've given you that stretches beyond it's original definition to be able to encompass the truth of God. The Body of Christ really does refer to all those who have faith in the Son of God for their salvation, even though a "body" is usually just an individual. Only your select definition of "person" does not apply to the way it is used in trinitarian doctrine. Is the word used of God in exactly the same way as it was coined for human use? No, but God is unique. There are none like the LORD. Nothing in all of creation is like God. Should it really be surprising that in trying to describe God that human words fail? Any comparison between God and human experience in creation is going to fall short, because God is not like anything else.

Sabellius -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 4:49:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez I understand that you think you have the answer because you believe, contrary to scripture, that the Father did become incarnate. Answers are only valuable if they are true. Your doctrine is heresy, and your belief that the Father became incarnate is false. No, not really. Actually you proved the co-equality of the persons but you also made a very big concession. It was inevitable. Karl Rahner stated that "any of the non-numerical three whom we call the persons of the one God-head could become man." (Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. 214) I wonder then if the Father did become Incarnate? I wonder how similar that would be to what we see of Jesus here on earth as the only begotten of the Father--God who became a man. This man then begotten from deity and by the human contribution of Mary would and could relate to the Father just the same way the Jesus did with God the Father. The distinction then should not have to be in a trinity of persons, but in the nature of the Incarnation. The begetting of the Son, to reconcile and restore relationship with humanity with God. God became a man because that is how He could relate to us, through His image creature--Jesus the imprint and expression of His being (Heb. 1:3 NRSV). quote: I realize these things, however their meanings are within their respective ranges. The range of person does not include three beings within one being. You are trying to make some be that is simply not congruent human comprehension or human terms. God related to us as a man because He wanted to communicate to us Himself in a way we could understand. God does not seek to confuse us, theologians attempt that. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPezWould you say that the word "body" has within it's range thousands of individuals throughout the world? After all, a body refers to the flesh of a single human or animal. How on earth could "body" apply to all believers at all times in all places? That's the second word from scripture I've given you that stretches beyond it's original definition to be able to encompass the truth of God. The Body of Christ really does refer to all those who have faith in the Son of God for their salvation, even though a "body" is usually just an individual. Right. Now you are suggesting that all semantic ranges of a word apply in one setting. This is what you seem to be suggesting. A discussion on the properties of the Trinity is noble, but very frustrating. For Trinitarians of course. Here is a good quote from Jaroslav Pelikan: quote: "This puzzling, indeed frustrating, combination of philosophical terminology for the relation of One and Three...was simultaneously typical of the theology of the Cappodocians and normative for the subsequent history of Trinitarian doctrine." He goes on to say that the answer to this difficulty was quote: "to declare that what was common to the Three and what was distinctive among them lay beyond speech and comprehension and therefore beyond either analysis or conceptualization." (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. 1:223) quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Only your select definition of "person" does not apply to the way it is used in trinitarian doctrine. Is the word used of God in exactly the same way as it was coined for human use? No, but God is unique. There are none like the LORD. Nothing in all of creation is like God. Should it really be surprising that in trying to describe God that human words fail? Any comparison between God and human experience in creation is going to fall short, because God is not like anything else. The Greek word translated "person" is hypostasis. Although rendered as "person," it is more properly understood as "substance" (See Moulton-Milligan) or "essence of being". The etymology of this word has to do with something that underlies. It is that which underlies, supports, or makes up something. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God, i.e. God's subsistence. Jesus is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression or imprint of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity. It is consistently taught, in the New Testament, that Christ was the visible form of the invisible God. The writer of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the image of God�s hypostasis (KJV person; NIV being; NRSV being Grk hypostasis). In context, of these opening texts, the God who spoke to us by His Son is the Father of the Son (1:1-2, 5). Hebrews is declaring Jesus to be the image of the God the Father�s subsistence. I would further say then, that there is no mention of the Son having His own hypostasis, or any references to plural hypostasis. I believe the whole of Scripture testifies of this as well. I conclude then that Jesus is the image of the invisible subsistence or person (KJV) or being (NRSV) of God.

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 5:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius I wonder then if the Father did become Incarnate? I wonder how similar that would be to what we see of Jesus here on earth as the only begotten of the Father--God who became a man. This man then begotten from deity and by the human contribution of Mary would and could relate to the Father just the same way the Jesus did with God the Father. The distinction then should not have to be in a trinity of persons, but in the nature of the Incarnation. The begetting of the Son, to reconcile and restore relationship with humanity with God. God became a man because that is how He could relate to us, through His image creature--Jesus the imprint and expression of His being (Heb. 1:3 NRSV). No, if the Father became incarnate, He would not relate to the Son in the same way that the Son incarnate would relate to the Father. The relationship between the Son of God and the Father is an eternal relationship, that is not dependent on creation. If it were dependent on creation, then that would mean that the unchanging God changed, something that is impossible. quote: Right. Now you are suggesting that all semantic ranges of a word apply in one setting. By no means. quote: Jesus is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression or imprint of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity. It is consistently taught, in the New Testament, that Christ was the visible form of the invisible God. Scripture declares that Jesus Christ is far more than the manifestation of God to humanity. Yes, Jesus Christ was God made evident, but He is so much more than that. Trinitarians don't deny that Jesus Christ was the invisible God made visible, but "oneness" does deny that the Son of God is so many other things that scripture declares that He is. quote: The writer of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the image of God�s hypostasis (KJV person; NIV being; NRSV being Grk hypostasis). In context, of these opening texts, the God who spoke to us by His Son is the Father of the Son (1:1-2, 5). Hebrews is declaring Jesus to be the image of the God the Father�s subsistence. I would further say then, that there is no mention of the Son having His own hypostasis, or any references to plural hypostasis. I believe the whole of Scripture testifies of this as well. I conclude then that Jesus is the image of the invisible subsistence or person (KJV) or being (NRSV) of God. Your conclusion is at odds with scripture. I have shown you why, but you refuse to listen. Again, your whole argument is "I don't understand how this can be true, so I'll believe this instead" despite the fact that you have no answers for when scripture does not line up with the idol you've created.

Sabellius -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 5:25:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez No, if the Father became incarnate, He would not relate to the Son in the same way that the Son incarnate would relate to the Father. The relationship between the Son of God and the Father is an eternal relationship, that is not dependent on creation. If it were dependent on creation, then that would mean that the unchanging God changed, something that is impossible. You don't see the presupposition here, do you? You need to first prove that there were multiple hypostasis in the being of God. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Scripture declares that Jesus Christ is far more than the manifestation of God to humanity. Yes, Jesus Christ was God made evident, but He is so much more than that. Trinitarians don't deny that Jesus Christ was the invisible God made visible, but "oneness" does deny that the Son of God is so many other things that scripture declares that He is. I think you are answering yourself here. I didn't say Jesus was ONLY a manifestation. quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Your conclusion is at odds with scripture. I have shown you why, but you refuse to listen. Again, your whole argument is "I don't understand how this can be true, so I'll believe this instead" despite the fact that you have no answers for when scripture does not line up with the idol you've created. Hmmmm. Nice sword. Thanks Figmentpez. I have enjoyed the dialogue.

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 5:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez No, if the Father became incarnate, He would not relate to the Son in the same way that the Son incarnate would relate to the Father. The relationship between the Son of God and the Father is an eternal relationship, that is not dependent on creation. If it were dependent on creation, then that would mean that the unchanging God changed, something that is impossible. You don't see the presupposition here, do you? You need to first prove that there were multiple hypostasis in the being of God. And I have. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Scripture declares that Jesus Christ is far more than the manifestation of God to humanity. Yes, Jesus Christ was God made evident, but He is so much more than that. Trinitarians don't deny that Jesus Christ was the invisible God made visible, but "oneness" does deny that the Son of God is so many other things that scripture declares that He is. I think you are answering yourself here. I didn't say Jesus was ONLY a manifestation. Yes, you did. You said that He was the image of the invisible God, and denied that He was more than that. That is, by definition, a manifestation.

Sabellius -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 5:42:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Yes, you did. You said that He was the image of the invisible God, and denied that He was more than that. That is, by definition, a manifestation. Case in point for narrow mindedness. I hope everyone observes this. I have said He was an "image" but I also used other words and adjective as well. It's easy to build a strawman but they don't last very long.

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 5:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Case in point for narrow mindedness. I hope everyone observes this. I have said He was an "image" but I also used other words and adjective as well. It's easy to build a strawman but they don't last very long. Yes, you did use other words, but they didn't change the meaning. A manifestation is "outward or perceptible indication; materialization", to manifest is "to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding". Would you care to tell us how your view of the Son of God is anything besides God made "clear or evident" to the "eyes or understanding" of humanity? Would you care to tell us how the Son of Man you promote is more than just an "outward or perceptible indication" of God, a "materialization" of flesh?

Kath -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/29/2008 6:35:39 PM)
In case this message was missed I am reposting it here now. I urge everyone to read the Terms of Service, the Statement of Faith and the Range of Doctrines for this website. We do not require that you share our beliefs to be a member of our community, but we will not allow forceful and sustained arguments against our beliefs. This is a Trinitarian website. I strongly urge those who disagree with this doctrine to find another subject to discuss, as continuing to disregard warnings will put your account in jeopardy. Sincerely Kath Volunteer Assistant Administrator Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns allowing time for a response during normal business hours. Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service. Please review our FAQ for an explanation of this policy.

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/30/2008 8:57:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bob97 I�ve been pondering the following verses from Proverbs 8 and find them very interesting in light of this discussion of the Trinity. 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. 24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, NIV Here are some points that one might conclude from the above verses. 1: This person was brought forth as the first of Gods works. 2: This person was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. 3: This person was given birth before creation. 4: This person was the craftsman at his side and rejoiced in his presence before creation. Bob Did you know that Proverbs, Chapter 8, is talking about Wisdom? Pro 8:1 Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? Pro 8:2 On the heights along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; Pro 8:3 beside the gates leading into the city, at the entrances, she cries aloud: Pro 8:4 "To you, O men, I call out; I raise my voice to all mankind. Jesus Christ was Creator, not created.

bob97 -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (4/30/2008 10:04:00 PM)
I could make a very good case that Christ is wisdom because He is also the Word. If wisdom in God was the first to be begotten then who was really the first to be begotten? I�ll just make a couple of points: 1 Corinthians 1:24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Let's look at a range of God's attributes that Jesus personifies: � truth � life � light � peace � word � wisdom? And then there are these comparative scriptures; John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Compare with Prov 8:22-23; �The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works" and "I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began". Hebrews 1:5-6 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." Compare with Prov 8:24; �When there were no oceans, I was given birth". Colossians 1:15-16 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Compare with Prov 8:30; "Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,". One could make a much more extensive argument but this being said, I am going to let this subject drop and have decided that my studies on the Trinity will be private in the future because people just seem to be unable to rationally discuss this subject. I believe in the Trinity but I think with an open mind there is much to be learned that we simply don�t understand. Bob

abraxas -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (5/1/2008 1:33:39 AM)
I haven't read through this thread so I apologize if this has already been covered. How are these verses understood? John 17:22-23 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (5/3/2008 2:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abraxas I haven't read through this thread so I apologize if this has already been covered. How are these verses understood? John 17:22-23 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Good question! Many heresies abound about this verse, but most of them have one thing in common. This verse is misapplied by the devil, and those who he has deceived, to try and perpetuate the lie that man can become god. Groups that follow this lie include the Mormons and "oneness" pentecostals. The truth about this verse is that the Church will never be one with God in exactly the same way that the Son is one with the Father. This is true in the same way that humans are not in the image of God as the same way that Jesus Christ is the very image of the Father. Humanity is not divinity, and humanity will never become divinity. Even though the Church will be united as one with God, we will not become of the same substance as God. God will remain God, and only He will be divine. Humanity will remain humanity, even though we will be perfected and united with God.

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (5/3/2008 2:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bob97 One could make a much more extensive argument but this being said, I am going to let this subject drop and have decided that my studies on the Trinity will be private in the future because people just seem to be unable to rationally discuss this subject. I believe in the Trinity but I think with an open mind there is much to be learned that we simply don�t understand. I'm sad to hear that you're rejecting the council of other Christians on this matter. Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron,So one man sharpens another. No Christian should ever say that they don't need the rest of the Body of Christ. You are an eye, or a hand, or some other body part, and you need the rest of the body to function properly. That doesn't just mean in some areas, that means in every area. While it's true that there are certainly things about God that humanity is yet to understand, it's also true that there is much we already do understand, things that are clear from study of scripture, and that Christianity has been united in declaring to be true for a very long time. Don't reject other Christians just because we firmly reject false doctrine. The Apostles were similarly emphatic about promoting the truth and rejecting heresy.

SavedbyGrace2007 -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (5/8/2008 4:55:59 PM)
Not to drift too off-topic but . . . This caught my eye: quote: God is triune, but man is NOT! God did indeed make man in His image, but He did not make us exactly the same as He is. He did not make us divine and He did not make us triune. This is the first time I've read or heard this (about man not being triune also). My understanding is that we do indeed have a soul, body, and spirit. 1 John 2:16 relates to the temptation of our (humanity's) personal trinity: quote: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. Lust of the flesh (body), lust of the eyes (soul), boastful pride of life (spirit). Eve was tempted by her trinity (Gen. 3:6): quote: When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Good for food (body), delight to the eyes (soul), desirable to make one wise (spirit). And of course Jesus was tempted body, soul, and spirit as well: Luke. 4:3 (Body), Luke. 4:5-6 (Soul), Luke. 4:9 (Spirit). quote: Figment, I thank you along with Ephesians. And thanks for the links to the Creeds. God has given you a gift in being able to articulate the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, all which are increasingly being attacked by those who would call themselves "Christians." They need to take heed to the warnings of St. Athansius and the Apostles. ITA and thank you Figment for being Figment! :) You have the primary gift of exhortation I believe that Paul mentioned (Rom. 12:8). Thank you for your wonderful insight and yes, I've learned increasingly the Trinity of God (the Trinity of all things!) is being attacked by Christians, including by misunderstanding who They are. This is heresy for sure and should be stopped. quote: Each is shown to have their own mind, their own thoughts, their own will, their own characteristics. They are always in agreement. The Son always does the will of the Father. You'd never have a scenario where they wouldn't be in agreement. What do you think of that possibility? John 5:19: quote: Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. quote: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all ontologically the same. They are deity, they are LORD, they are God, all made up of the same kind of "stuff", and more than that made up of the exact same "stuff". One substance. (As opposed to other "onenesses" (lack of a better word) such as one flesh (husband and wife; Gen. 2:24), or one spirit (believers/bride/body and Christ; 1 Cor. 6:17)). God Bless. [:)]

figmentPez -> RE: A Few questions regarding Jesus and God the Father (5/8/2008 5:47:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedbyGrace2007 Not to drift too off-topic but . . . This caught my eye: quote: God is triune, but man is NOT! God did indeed make man in His image, but He did not make us exactly the same as He is. He did not make us divine and He did not make us triune. This is the first time I've read or heard this (about man not being triune also). My understanding is that we do indeed have a soul, body, and spirit. There is some debate over if man is bipartite (being pysical/body and spiritual/soul/mind/heart/etc.) or if man is tripartiate (with soul and spirit being separate) or if it's wrong to even try and divide beyond one, or if it's necessary to go beyond three. I don't know what side of that debate I come down on. No proponent of a tripartite man has been able to tell me which of the three parts is, definitively, the heart, strength or mind that we are to love God with. Word studies haven't shown me anything besides an amazement at how many more words are used in the Hebrew and Greek than I would have imagined. However, all that is off topic. It doesn't matter if man is tripartite, and the body, soul and spirit really are three distinct parts with no others to speak of. It doesn't matter because being tripartite is not the same thing as being triune. God eternally exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these three are NOT the same as the body, soul and spirit of man! Within a single man, there does NOT exist the father/son relationship that exists between the Father and the Son. No part of a single human can be said to have begotten any other part. The spirit of a man does not proceed from his soul or body the way that the Holy Spirit proceeds. The three parts of a human are not the same as the three persons of the triune God. quote: They are always in agreement. The Son always does the will of the Father. You'd never have a scenario where they wouldn't be in agreement. What do you think of that possibility? What do I think of the possibility of one person of the Godhead not being in agreement? That's a pretty complicated issue. Does the Son asking "if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me;" a non-agreement? The Son goes on to say "yet not as I will, but as You will." Is that an acknowledgment that the Son's will is actually contrary to the Father's will? Even if it were, would that mean disagreement, since the Son had already submitted to the will of the Father? I don't think it's a possibility for the Son to do other than the will of the Father. It's not in the nature of God for that to happen. However, the Son was greatly distressed by His impending death. (Interestingly enough, Jesus has this to say on the matter "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death;" If the Father is the soul of God, is Jesus talking about the Father being grieved here? The Father probably was grieved, but somehow I don't think that Christ is talking about the Father as "my soul".) The Son didn't want to have to die, maybe the Father didn't want Him to have to die either. Assuming that the death of the Son really is the only way to save humanity, not simply the method God chose above other options, then it could be said that God would have preferred for man not to sin in the first place (even though He knew we would before we did.) I think I'm beyond my ability to understand that this point, maybe I passed that point a while ago, trying to fathom the mind of God. God is in perfect unity, despite the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being distinct to the point of having their own thoughts, such that they are distinct persons. How this can be, I don't know, but it is what scripture shows.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI