@Samuel_23, I actually like routine and habits at age 82, because God uses them to help me remember to take my pills!
1 Like
Doesn’t the one imply the other?
And what does it mean to be One?
One example is being of One body, One heart, One mind, One will. Like a sacred marriage where the two become one. If a marriage is sacred, does that mean that one mind controls the other? Or does it mean the two have become aligned, in agreement, to share the work, to work toward the same purpose, each part taking a different role but all parts working toward the same goal.
Though it is pointed out, Christ came from the Father.
When we align ourselves with God’s Holy Spirit… which is the embodiment of Love, Wisdom, Peace, Justice, Kindness, Protection, Encouragement and so on… we become One with that Spirit. We also become One with Christ, One with the Father. Are we a military, where orders are barked out and followed? Or are we maintaining a symbiotic relationship where all parts move together? Like a human body. Or maybe we stand tall like a house with many rooms where God is the house and we are the rooms. Not just that we house God within us, or that God rents us a room, but that together we are the House on a sure foundation where life can thrive and plant some trees out in the yard to root in and bare some good fruit.
A question might be asked, if we ourselves behave in other ways, are we aligning with other spirits? Have we joined ourselves with corrupting or destructive principles?
And of course this Oneness is different from saying, It was Agatha all along. I was the one you spoke to the whole time. Jesus wearing different masks but always being the one mind behind it all. Jesus expresses a division, roles, identity within these roles. But the burden is light because it is never One Person’s task to carry it all alone.
Do you know that there are organisms that act as one creature? Like Siphonophores? Bee hives can also be considered one. No one bee could live alone because each type of bee plays a vital role to sustain the whole. They have a hierarchy, sure. But the point is not who is queen, but whether the hive survives. The Organism is not a single bee, it’s the Hive.
I read recently it is believed that some female creatures might be able to bare a child without a male counter part, if extinction were near. It is triggered in the genetics. As if some guiding influence within the very genetic coding were determined that not all will be lost. That a remnant will surely survive.
But who knows. I certainly don’t.
Those who strive to be King often fail to understand what it means to wield such power. They tend to think only of serving themselves, their own comfort. But those who embody nobility, virtue never need to claim a throne to hold the power those qualities grant. The Holy Spirit works through them. We either walk in the Spirit, or we don’t. We either care for the Kingdom, or tear it apart for selfish gain. You cannot serve two Masters after all. One must decide for One’s self who One shall Be-
align with, embody, and bring forth into this world:
Savior or Threat, Doctor or Disease, King or Enemy to the throne.
@Bruce_Leiter, im waiting for ur reply on this:
u asked me where John Calvin talks abt Filioque
I gave u the reference as Book 1 Chapter 13 section 18
Interesting!! Thanks, @Samuel_23!
1 Like
No problem @Bruce_Leiter
11 posts were merged into an existing topic: Jesus, the Anointed Man—Not God?
@Bruce_Leiter, I was waiting for you reply on this:
I never brought this in front of a calvinist, what do you think about this, is Calvin right here, is he going beyond Scriptures, when the Scriptures clearly state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father…What do you think @Bruce_Leiter
Refresh my memory on what Calvin says about Filioque; my memory from having spent a semester reading and studying his Institutes is from the late 1970s. Besides, my copy of the three volumes somehow disappeared because of my many moves since then.
I don’t see what the big deal is concerning that issue that split the Orthodox from the RCC. The three Persons of the Trinity all work together on their every action: creation, salvation, and sanctification. Why is the Filioque so important? It seems like unimportant splitting of theological hairs.
Thank you for raising this thoughtfully. It’s understandable that, at first glance, the Filioque might seem like a minor or even unnecessary distinction—especially given that all three Persons of the Trinity indeed work inseparably in creation, redemption, and sanctification (what theologians often refer to as the opera ad extra trinitatis indivisa sunt). Yet the theological weight of the Filioque clause is not simply about parsing hairs, but about protecting both the order of eternal relations within the Godhead and the revelation of the Son and Spirit in Scripture.
As for Calvin, you’re right to want a refresher—his treatment of the Filioque is more restrained than polemical. In Institutes Book I, chapter 13, section 19, Calvin affirms the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (a Patre Filioque) but stresses that this does not imply two sources of divinity or dual origins, nor does it disrupt Trinitarian unity. His concern, like the Nicene Fathers, is to maintain the distinct persons without dividing the essence.
He writes:
“It is not fitting to invent a ‘quaternity’ of the Spirit, as if He derived part of His essence from the Son and part from the Father. The Spirit is from the Father, but not without the Son.”
Calvin clearly sides with the West on the procession of the Spirit, but he also resists any theological overreach that would subordinate the Spirit or blur the personal distinctions. His approach reflects a balanced concern for both orthodoxy and charity—he believed the East was wrong to remove the Filioque, but he was not inclined to condemn them harshly for it.
Now, to the importance of the issue: the Filioque touches the doctrine of revelation. The Son says in John 15:26 that the Spirit proceeds from the Father but is sent by the Son, and in John 16:14 the Spirit “glorifies Me, for He will take what is Mine.” These passages shaped the Latin theological conviction that the Spirit is eternally related to both Father and Son, not only in temporal mission but in eternal origin—proceeding from the Father, through the Son, as the Cappadocians also allowed.
The danger in removing the Filioque is inadvertently implying that the Spirit is not related to the Son, which would risk collapsing the unity of divine operations and muddying how we understand the Spirit’s role in revealing Christ. That has downstream implications for how we understand Scripture, salvation, and even ecclesiology.
In short, the Filioque matters because Trinitarian relations matter. The Spirit’s eternal procession shapes the Spirit’s mission—to glorify the Son and bring us into communion with the Father through Christ. While this issue may seem technical, it is really about how we understand who God is, how God saves, and how the three Persons relate eternally and in history.
So while it may appear like theological hair-splitting, the Filioque was historically defended to protect Christ-centered pneumatology and the integrity of Trinitarian faith. And in fairness to the East, they were rightly concerned about any unilateral doctrinal addition to the Nicene Creed, which raises questions about conciliar authority and the unity of the Church.
It’s a deep issue with real historical and theological substance—and I appreciate you raising it.
J.
Okay, @Jimmbo, Jesus made the following claims that he is God with the Father and the Spirit. Were they literal or figurative (metaphorical, as in metaphors)? Please tell me.
Jhn_6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Jhn_6:41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
Jhn_6:48 I am the bread of life.
Jhn_6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
Jhn_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Jhn_8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Jhn_9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
Jhn_10:7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Jhn_10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
Jhn_10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Jhn_10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Jhn_11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
Jhn_14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Jhn_15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
Jhn_15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
“Metaphorical” merely means that Jesus is comparing himself to some familiar object or person to make his spiritual point. He doesn’t mean that he is a literal door or a shepherd, since he probably helped his father make doors as a carpenter. But he is the only way for us to become members of his flock in the sheep pen (church) and is David’s divine Shepherd and ours (Psalm 23).
You can take my ideas as a former English teacher and pastor that Jesus is speaking figuratively pointing to spiritual truths about his deity.
1 Like
Yes, this one, Book 1 Chapter 13 section 18
Hey brother and sisters in Christ tell me what you think:
In 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 (KJV), the Apostle Paul provides a vivid and profound description of the culmination of God’s ultimate plan, painting a remarkable picture of divine unity. This passage reveals the purposeful progression of Christ’s redemptive mission, highlighting a grand narrative that leads toward the absolute unity and sovereignty of God.
Paul begins by stating in verse 24, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” Here, we see a picture of fulfillment—Christ has completed His role as Redeemer and King, establishing a kingdom that reflects divine authority. When every opposing force and principality is defeated, Christ presents this fully redeemed creation back to God. The submission of the kingdom underscores the purpose of redemption: to restore all things back into perfect harmony under God’s singular, supreme authority.
Moving to verse 25, “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet,” Paul emphasizes the current reign of Christ. This reign is not merely symbolic, but active, purposeful, and directed toward a divine conclusion. Christ’s rule systematically dismantles every form of rebellion, evil, sin, and death. In doing this, He fulfills the ancient promise that God’s sovereignty would be perfectly reestablished, and every form of rebellion would cease. Christ’s reign, therefore, is God’s instrument to bring about total restoration and peace.
Verse 26 clarifies this ultimate victory: “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” Death, as the ultimate consequence of sin and separation from God, represents the final barrier to perfect unity between God and creation. Its destruction signifies the complete restoration of life, wholeness, and communion with God. When death itself is abolished, God’s original intent for creation—unbroken fellowship and eternal life—is fully realized.
In verses 27–28, Paul deepens this powerful imagery. He writes, “For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” Paul clarifies that though everything is made subject to Christ, God Himself, who granted Christ authority, remains supreme. Christ’s authority is derived entirely from God and serves to manifest God’s ultimate sovereignty. Thus, Christ, through His resurrection, reign, and final victory, functions as the one who faithfully brings creation back into harmony with its Creator.
The culmination comes in verse 28: “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.” This verse presents a majestic picture of perfect unity—where everything, including Christ Himself, fully submits and aligns under God’s supreme authority. This submission does not diminish Christ’s victory or glory; rather, it magnificently reveals the ultimate purpose of Christ’s work: the restoration and unification of creation under God’s complete sovereignty.
Significantly, Christ’s resurrected and glorified body will forever remain the dwelling place in which the fullness of God abides. In eternity, Christ Himself will stand as the eternal, visible manifestation of the Invisible, Omnipresent and Eternal Spirt of God. Thus, the glorified Christ is not simply a temporary revelation, but rather an everlasting expression of God’s presence and identity.
Thus, the central message of this passage is the seamless integration and reconciliation of all things back to God. Paul paints an awe-inspiring portrait of the end goal of redemption: absolute harmony, perfect unity, and eternal submission of all creation—including Christ—to the singular, unrivaled sovereignty of God. This scriptural vision presents not a divided picture, but one magnificent, unified reality in which God’s authority, purpose, and presence fill everything completely.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Jesus, the Anointed Man—Not God?
Thank you, @Johann, for your clear explanation. I appreciate your response a lot.
1 Like
A post was merged into an existing topic: Jesus, the Anointed Man—Not God?
Oh, brother… you’ve just laid out a 1 Corinthians 15 feast that even Augustine would pause to ponder. But let’s not get lost in poetic grandeur—Paul is painting the final act of redemption with clarity and purpose.
Christ’s mission was never self-serving; it was utterly devoted to restoring creation to its rightful King. Paul says when the Son hands the kingdom over to the Father, it’s not a demotion—it’s the completion of the mission. His authority was always granted, never seized. And the fact that the Son remains subject to the Father after delivering the kingdom doesn’t speak of division—it speaks of order, unity, and the harmonious economy within the Godhead.
When Paul says “God may be all in all,” he’s not talking about a three-member council sharing power like some heavenly board of directors. He’s declaring the absolute, undivided sovereignty of one God restored. The Son’s reign culminates in perfect submission—not because He’s lesser, but because that’s the way unity works when roles are fulfilled and peace is established.
And yes, the glorified Christ remains forever the visible manifestation of the Almighty—forever embodying the fullness of deity. Colossians 2:9 says it best: “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The Son’s authority doesn’t vanish in heaven—it stands as the eternal throne from which the invisible God remains fully known to creation.
So let’s close the buffet without indigestion:
- Christ’s reign ends, but His glory doesn’t—it remains forever as the radiance of the Father.
- His submission isn’t defeat—it’s the perfect harmony of the Godhead.
- Creation is brought back into unity, worshipping one sovereign God.
There’s no trinity-splitting here—just the sublime, eternal symphony of Father, Son, and Spirit in unity.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
I came across this video: https://youtu.be/JCD-lTGkhuc?si=x4G_JKF1bD7FiSsv, and it offers an excellent explanation of how St. Cyril of Alexandria firmly opposed and refuted the teachings of Nestorius.
Nestorius struggled with the idea of calling Mary “Theotokos” (God-bearer), questioning how God could be an infant—he found such a notion scandalous. But St. Cyril rightly defended the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures and upheld the true doctrine that Mary did, in fact, bear God in the flesh.
A must-watch for anyone interested in Christological debates and the rich theological tradition of the Church!