View Full Version : 3 in 1 - I'M MORE ONENESS THAN YOU ARE ...
OK ... FREE FOR ALL ...
This morning and afternoon a feeding frenzy took place when TB made the following remark last night in THE THREAD ....
I just want to say that I feel very uncomfortable with the extreme emphasis that some folks place on the Holy Ghost. One gets the impression that in their thinking the Holy Ghost is our Saviour instead of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost is servant not Saviour. The Holy Ghost leads us to Christ, baptizes us into the Body of Christ, empowers us, and leads and guides us in our walk with Christ, but let's not forget that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and it's in Him we must put our trust!
Swords came out ... and tensions rose high at the prospect that TB made distinctions in the Godhead ....
and so it BEGS TO BE ASKED ...
1. Are there distinctions to be made when we discuss and explain the Godhead?
2. Are some Oneness folks spooked by the usage of Father, Son and Holy Ghost terminology ... especially when used in the same sentence?
3. Must we be able to fully explain God?
4. Does our salvation hinge on our views of the Godhead?
5. Did God die on the cross? - That's WH's question.
:beatdeadhorse
Malvaro
02-28-2007, 03:29 PM
this will be fun to watch.....
Digging4Truth
02-28-2007, 03:32 PM
We were once practicing a song in the choir which had a phrase in it which one young man didn't care for. It was too... trinitariany... for him. :)
I asked him...
Have you been baptized in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost...
He looked at me shocked and exclaimed NO!!!!!!!!!!!
I told him... you better.
Sure... you have a revelation that lets you know that the name of all these is Jesus but don't react in disgust at the word of God.
You need to live AND love the word.
I still don't think he got it though.
The word is the word and please let me never be found denying the word of God.
You have a potentially good thread here bro.
1. Are there distinctions to be made when we discuss and explain the Godhead?
2. Are some Oneness folks spooked by the usage of Father, Son and Holy Ghost terminology ... especially when used in the same sentence?
3. Must we be able to fully explain God?
4. Does our salvation hinge on our views of the Godhead?
5. Did God die on the cross? - That's WH's question.
:beatdeadhorse
1. The Father sent the Son. The Father offered the Son as a sacrifice for our sins. We distinguish between offices. Jesus is our High Priest and Jesus is the Lamb of God, yet, the priest offers the lamb. How can that be? Jesus, in the office of priest, offers Jesus, in the office of lamb.
2. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." If we quote that Scripture (some don't acknowledge it as actual Scripture) we mention all three at once. If we say that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son... we mention two at once. If we say that Jesus has ascended to heaven, sat down on the right hand of the Father, and has poured out the Holy Ghost, we mention three. If we say that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and power..., we mention three. We cant' even quote Scripture without mentioning three. Three what? Three offices, three roles, three masks, three personalities, three personas, three kenoonas, three manifestations? These have all been used by Oneness folks to describe our triune God (another term used by Oneness folks) because we believe that God is a triunity (another term used by Oneness folks).
3. No (in my opinion)
4. No (in my opinion)
5. The One who died on the cross was God manifested (revealed, displayed) in the flesh.
freeatlast
02-28-2007, 03:41 PM
I have found that most oneness folks are uncomfortable with the language of the bible. Truly Blessed spoke it well..and folks freaked out.
Blessing from God the Father and from his son Jesus Christ to ya all.
Esther
02-28-2007, 03:42 PM
We were once practicing a song in the choir which had a phrase in it which one young man didn't care for. It was too... trinitariany... for him. :)
I asked him...
Have you been baptized in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost...
He looked at me shocked and exclaimed NO!!!!!!!!!!!
I told him... you better.
Sure... you have a revelation that lets you know that the name of all these is Jesus but don't react in disgust at the word of God.
You need to live AND love the word.
I still don't think he got it though.
The word is the word and please let me ever be found denying the word of God.
You have a potentially good thread here bro.
Is the bolded what you "meant" to say?
Digging4Truth
02-28-2007, 03:42 PM
Is the bolded what you "meant" to say?
LOL...
Indeed it is NOT.
I will edit that right now.
Thanks. :)
"Trinitarianoia" - I have the disease I suppose and I am quite thankful for it! Thanks for putting a label on it. Phil Jones, 2/28
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 03:45 PM
We were once practicing a song in the choir which had a phrase in it which one young man didn't care for. It was too... trinitariany... for him. :)
I asked him...
Have you been baptized in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost...
He looked at me shocked and exclaimed NO!!!!!!!!!!!
I told him... you better.
Sure... you have a revelation that lets you know that the name of all these is Jesus but don't react in disgust at the word of God.
You need to live AND love the word.
I still don't think he got it though.
The word is the word and please let me ever be found denying the word of God.
You have a potentially good thread here bro.
I would contend most OP's dont know thier own doctrine or anyone elses for that matter - GODHEAD stuff is harder than we want to give it credit for - typically oneness folks do one of two things when discussing the GODHEAD - call names or run away -
they dont have to, there are better options but this has been my experience by and large - - now then my statements here will warrant the same question it always does when the OP doctrine is in any way "tainted"
"Are you a trinitarian?" :drawguns
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 03:47 PM
I would contend most OP's dont know thier own doctrine or anyone elses for that matter - GODHEAD stuff is harder than we want to give it credit for - typically oneness folks do one of two things when discussing the GODHEAD - call names or run away -
they dont have to, there are better options but this has been my experience by and large - - now then my statements here will warrant the same question it always does when the OP doctrine is in any way "tainted"
"Are you a trinitarian" :drawguns
Are you a former CARMite?
Are you a former CARMite?
The name calling has begun ...
OK ... FREE FOR ALL ...
This morning and afternoon a feeding frenzy took place when TB made the following remark last night in THE THREAD ....
Swords came out ... and tensions rose high at the prospect that TB made distinctions in the Godhead ....
and so it BEGS TO BE ASKED ...
1. Are there distinctions to be made when we discuss and explain the Godhead?
2. Are some Oneness folks spooked by the usage of Father, Son and Holy Ghost terminology ... especially when used in the same sentence?
3. Must we be able to fully explain God?
4. Does our salvation hinge on our views of the Godhead?
5. Did God die on the cross? - That's WH's question.
:beatdeadhorse
Listen, Bro. Daniel...I read TB's post this morning and it never entered my mind that he was 'less than Oneness' by posting it as he did.:dunno
Sabellius on "Does our salvation hinge our our view of the Godhead?"
In some sense it must Daniel. If not enter Pandora's Box. For example, would the view of tritheism or hinduism be acceptable in the sight of God on Judgement Day? I think we must end somewhere and not leave the ends frayed to later come unraveld further. I believe it is biblical as well:
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," Romans 1:20 NKJV
Digging4Truth
02-28-2007, 03:52 PM
I would contend most OP's dont know thier own doctrine or anyone elses for that matter - GODHEAD stuff is harder than we want to give it credit for - typically oneness folks do one of two things when discussing the GODHEAD - call names or run away -
they dont have to, there are better options but this has been my experience by and large - - now then my statements here will warrant the same question it always does when the OP doctrine is in any way "tainted"
"Are you a trinitarian?" :drawguns
No sir... I was raised oneness and still consider myself oneness.
But I have begun to weigh wether there is a more of a distinction to be made between the son and the father.
The scriptures I posted in another thread along these lines are enough, in my opinion, to make one stand back and take another look.
Where do I stand? Where I was raised basically... but I am in a process of studying this issue out for myself. It really appears to me that the apostles seem to have drawn a strong distinction between the father and the son.
In all things... I desire that the word of God ring true and every man... beginning with myself... a liar.
I believe what the word says. It is just a process of fearful study and prayer to actually find out what that might be.
Listen, Bro. Daniel...I read TB's post this morning and it never entered my mind that he was 'less than Oneness' by posting it as he did.:dunno
I didn't think so either, Barb ... but as J-Roc and I predicted on the phone we knew the TRUTH POLICE WOULD GO BALLISTIC.
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 03:55 PM
The name calling has begun ...
I'm not a name caller. It's a question directed at someone else in all seriousness. Assumptions become you, Daniel.
JN Anderson
02-28-2007, 03:57 PM
1. Are there distinctions to be made when we discuss and explain the Godhead? YES.
2. Are some Oneness folks spooked by the usage of Father, Son and Holy Ghost terminology ... especially when used in the same sentence? YES.
3. Must we be able to fully explain God? NO.
4. Does our salvation hinge on our views of the Godhead? YES. IT IS INEVITABLE.
5. Did God die on the cross? - That's WH's question. NO. NOT EVEN A LITTLE SORE.
I'm not a name caller. It's a question directed at someone else in all seriousness. Assumptions become you, Daniel.
No assumptions THEO ... just pointing out the playbook ... on how the TRUTH POLICE first categorize in order to marginalize ... rather than address the issue.
I didn't think so either, Barb ... but as J-Roc and I predicted on the phone we knew the TRUTH POLICE WOULD GO BALLISTIC.
Well, I am Oneness to the very core of my being and believe in truth and obeying Scripture and all that goes with it and it didn't seem 'off' to me.:dunno
I haven't read the posts that followed TB's this morning...I'll check it out when I have time.
Well, I am Oneness to the very core of my being and believe in truth and obeying Scripture and all that goes with it and it didn't seem 'off' to me.:dunno
I haven't read the posts that followed TB's this morning...I'll check it out when I have time.
One thing I know for sure, Barb .... is that.... I'M MORE ONENESS THAN WHOLEHEATED!!!!!!!!! :killinme
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 04:03 PM
No assumptions THEO ... just pointing the playbook ... on how the TRUTH POLICE first categorize in order to marginalize ... rather than address the issue.
You have no clue what you are talking about in addressing me, Sir.
BTW, whose calling names? (i.e. the "TRUTH POLICE")
Of what spirit is this effort?
in the spirit of revelation ... :killinme :killinme :killinme :tease
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 04:05 PM
Are you a former CARMite?
Bump for Sola
categorize to marginalize ...
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 04:07 PM
in the spirit of revelation ... :killinme :killinme :killinme :tease
I'm sure that someone is amused by you, if only yourself.
philjones
02-28-2007, 04:08 PM
You have no clue what you are talking about in addressing me, Sir.
BTW, whose calling names? (i.e. the "TRUTH POLICE")
Of what spirit is this effort?
Although it is my heart's desire to give Dan credit, it appears that in his pursuit of truth our brother enjoys sowing seeds of dissension and division along the path! :) All the while polishing his whited sepulcher!:tease :tease
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 04:09 PM
CARMite? I have been there before - maybe a few times but thats about it -
Although it is my heart's desire to give Dan credit, it appears that in his pursuit of truth our brother enjoys sowing seeds of dissension and division along the path! :) All the while polishing his whited sepulcher!:tease :tease
Hey Phil, pass the Turtlewax.
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 04:10 PM
categorize to marginalize ...
You are running loose charging folks as TRUTH POLICE and this is what you harass me with while I ask a question of someone else you know nothing about?
CARMite? I have been there before - maybe a few times but thats about it -
Sola, do you fear the term PERSONs to describe God?
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 04:11 PM
Daniel knows me - even though he wont return my call
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 04:11 PM
Sola, do you fear the term PERSONs to describe God?
I dont fear the term "persons" to describe GOD... as long as the term is qualified
philjones
02-28-2007, 04:12 PM
Hey Phil, pass the Turtlewax.
Dude,
Get your own. There is only enough here for me to get MY sepulcher in shape... and I still have the cup and saucer to deal with!:sad :sad :ranting
Theophilus
02-28-2007, 04:20 PM
CARMite? I have been there before - maybe a few times but thats about it -
Thanks for answering, I used to post there quite a bit with a core group of oneness believers that stood their ground and never ran, nor called names.
For the record, I have many trinitarian friends. We have exhausted the issue several times, yet remain friends.
Do you remember "The Layman?" We kept the gloves up and earned one another's respect.
I was sorry to see that situation at CARM fall apart.
My point is that I won't run or call names. Here, I'm thankful that I can assure you that there is a majority present that I can say the same for.
I dont fear the term "persons" to describe GOD... as long as the term is qualified
How would you qualify it for us so that it is acceptable to the rest us???
OVERHEARD ....
Felicity said ....
Nobody has it all figured out in regard to the Godhead and certainly Oneness people disagree amongst themselves on points of theology related to the Oneness.
As for myself I am Oneness from the top of my head to the soles of my feet but there are probs with our theology as there are with trinitarian theology. (re the godhead)
Nahum
02-28-2007, 04:26 PM
Here is what I have received from this thread so far.......
0
rrford
02-28-2007, 04:29 PM
I didn't think so either, Barb ... but as J-Roc and I predicted on the phone we knew the TRUTH POLICE WOULD GO BALLISTIC.
In all honesty Bro. Alicia, you come across more as the Truth Police than anyone on this Forum. Or should I say, the one who has arrived to "bring all truth to all men."
Such approaches make it difficult to continue meaningful conversation, IMO.
rrford
02-28-2007, 04:30 PM
Here is what I have received from this thread so far.......
0
That makes 2 of us.
Well RR ... tell us why our salvation hinges on our view of the Godhead?
rrford
02-28-2007, 04:36 PM
Well RR ... tell us why our salvation hinges on our view of the Godhead?
Who said it did?
Who said it did?
So it doesn't? What would you say to a trinitarian who is Jesus name baptized and is filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost but will not give up the doctrine of the Trinity?
rrford
02-28-2007, 04:41 PM
So it doesn't? What would you say to a trinitarian who is Jesus name baptized and is filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost but will not give up the doctrine of the Trinity?
Who knows? Every conversation is a dynamic of it's own. Trying to determine repsonses to hypotheticals is an exercise in futility for the most part.
Scott Hutchinson
02-28-2007, 05:17 PM
Jesus's humanity died on the cross and not His diety.
BoredOutOfMyMind
02-28-2007, 05:17 PM
Who knows? Every conversation is a dynamic of it's own. Trying to determine repsonses to hypotheticals is an exercise in futility for the most part.
So if an Apostolic who does not think Trinitarians ls Lost dies, is he lost since he did not believe the message?
:dunno
Scott Hutchinson
02-28-2007, 05:20 PM
Yes I think there are distinctions in the manifestations of The True God.
But not distinctions in personages of three persons in a godhead.
So if an Apostolic who does not think Trinitarians ls Lost dies, is he lost since he did not believe the message?
:dunno
Do you mean kind of like GUILT BY ASSOCIATION???
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 06:08 PM
OK ... FREE FOR ALL ...
This morning and afternoon a feeding frenzy took place when TB made the following remark last night in THE THREAD ....
Swords came out ... and tensions rose high at the prospect that TB made distinctions in the Godhead ....
and so it BEGS TO BE ASKED ...
1. Are there distinctions to be made when we discuss and explain the Godhead?
:beatdeadhorse
Since I was the first to "draw the sword", my issue was that I felt TB not only made a distinction in the rolls of Son and Spirit, he separated them completely. I personally do not believe one can over emphasis the Holy Ghost, since the Holy Ghost is God.
Now I have no problem with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But if we divide them to the point that one is not talking about God if they say Holy Ghost, then I have a problem. I personally understand that when I get the Holy Ghost, I got Jesus, as he is ONE.
Scott Hutchinson
02-28-2007, 06:10 PM
ST.MATT if one receives the Holy Ghost they receive the Spirit of God or Spirit of Grace.
Since I was the first to "draw the sword", my issue was that I felt TB not only made a distinction in the rolls of Son and Spirit, he separated them completely. I personally do not believe one can over emphasis the Holy Ghost, since the Holy Ghost is God.
Now I have no problem with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But if we divide them to the point that one is not talking about God if they say Holy Ghost, then I have a problem. I personally understand that when I get the Holy Ghost, I got Jesus, as he is ONE.
Please tell me how TB separated them completely .... I did not read that in his post.
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 06:17 PM
I just want to say that I feel very uncomfortable with the extreme emphasis that some folks place on the Holy Ghost. One gets the impression that in their thinking the Holy Ghost is our Saviour instead of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost is servant not Saviour. The Holy Ghost leads us to Christ, baptizes us into the Body of Christ, empowers us, and leads and guides us in our walk with Christ, but let's not forget that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and it's in Him we must put our trust!
I could have been reading him wrong, as my perspective is Oneness. But it seemed to me that if the Holy Ghost is God, and Jesus is God, then how can the Holy Ghost not also be Jesus. I am sure you understand that from a Oneness person, this sounds like TB was making the HG to be something besides what Jesus was. Again, I have no problem distinguishing between the rolls of Father, Son, and Spirit. But I see them all as One God, so if I brag on the Holy Ghost, I am bragging on the Father and Son also, because they are all ONE.
I could have been reading him wrong, as my perspective is Oneness. But it seemed to me that if the Holy Ghost is God, and Jesus is God, then how can the Holy Ghost not also be Jesus. I am sure you understand that from a Oneness person, this sounds like TB was making the HG to be something besides what Jesus was. Again, I have no problem distinguishing between the rolls of Father, Son, and Spirit. But I see them all as One God, so if I brag on the Holy Ghost, I am bragging on the Father and Son also, because they are all ONE.
Ah ... but I'm more Oneness than you, Matt.
No I disagree w/ your initial and second read...
in context, the point he was making about salvation it all fit ... kudos for your tenacious defense of truth. :killinme :killinme :tease
BoredOutOfMyMind
02-28-2007, 06:32 PM
Ah ... but I'm more Oneness than you, Matt.
No I disagree w/ your initial and second read... in context, the the point he was making about salvation it all fit ... kudos for your tenacious defense of truth. :killinme :killinme :tease
You make less and less sense than in the first post.
HOW can you be "more Oneness" than anyone?
:dunno
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 06:36 PM
Ah ... but I'm more Oneness than you, Matt.
No I disagree w/ your initial and second read... in context, the the point he was making about salvation it all fit ... kudos for your tenacious defense of truth. :killinme :killinme :tease
Actually, a person is not Oneness at all if they think they can have Christ and not have his Spirit. You are correct, it is about salvation.
You make less and less sense than in the first post.
HOW can you be "more Oneness" than anyone?
:dunno
BOOM it's simply meant for effect ... notice the smilies ... of course no one is less or more Oneness ... but I will answer w/ my own question
How can someone be less Oneness if they agree with the statement TB made this morning?
As someone accused some of being this morning.
Sounds like some here are really trinity to me.
I have no more time to waste on those with trinitarian leanings.
bump for SG ...
Originally Posted by sola gratia View Post
I dont fear the term "persons" to describe GOD... as long as the term is qualified
How would you qualify THE TERM PERSON so that it is acceptable to the rest of us???
Actually, a person is not Oneness at all if they think they can have Christ and not have his Spirit. You are correct, it is about salvation.
Who said such a thing? not TB ... do you think that TB's original comment can be construed from a Oneness view at all???
Arphaxad
02-28-2007, 07:03 PM
You make less and less sense than in the first post.
HOW can you be "more Oneness" than anyone?
:dunno
BTW, how much is one?
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 07:23 PM
Who said such a thing? not TB ... do you think that TB's original comment can be construed from a Oneness view at all???
I think that TB's post can be construed as leaning away from Oneness. Now why did you never answer my questions on the other threads? :ranting
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 07:24 PM
bump for SG ...
How would you qualify THE TERM PERSON so that it is acceptable to the rest of us???
Okay Bro the term persons usually fowls us up (us – meaning “oneness Pentecostals”) the term persons is better defined and really contemporized by modern Trinitarians like the Assemblies of God for instance, as “aspects” – many AG ministers refer to the distinctions: Father, Son and Holy Ghost as “aspects” in lieu of the traditional “persons”… Although they are okay with “persons” – because they understand the meaning of the tern
The term “persons” was used instead of manifestations to distinct the GODHEAD(Father, Son and Holy Ghost) from other manifestations such as the “Burning Bush” – because they felt these where more like aspects and the make up of GOD, and therefore these distinctions, or aspects of GOD, deserved more credence than the burning bush or other such “manifestations” In this manner “persons” was finally decided upon although not used in original Trinitarian language! Its actually not a bad word though, if you understand the purpose of the word, and the intention of it… Instead of my words let me quote a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary – J Hampton Keathley
Let me supply a reference: From a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary
Trinity (Triunity) of God
by
J. Hampton Keathley III
Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons tends to detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.
It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”
In this better explained definition of “persons”– I really don’t see the doctrinal conflict Here is why – we have to notice the distinctions of GOD for instance
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 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.
1Co 15:28 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.
See here that the Son will subject Himself to the Father – these are distinctive roles – manifestations “persons” in GOD - if we fail to recognize them – just to preserve our view – we do ourselves a dis-service – think of another portion where divinity divided performed distinct functions
(Luk 3:21) Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
(Luk 3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Here we see GOD acting in three persons – by that I mean they are totally separate, and distinct in their presentation – revealing HIMSELF to humanity
(Luk 23:34) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Here we again see JESUS – who is GOD – pray to His Father – “forgive them” Listen to me from the moment of HIS birth to this day JESUS was always GOD! Even on the cross it was JESUS! The distinction of persons existed - even though we don’t completely understand it. This is not classic trinitarianism – but instead it simply notes the distinctions of the roles found in the one true GOD – roles, manifestations “persons”
I think that TB's post can be construed as leaning away from Oneness. Now why did you never answer my questions on the other threads? :ranting
So the post is less Oneness than the other Oneness posts ... :killinme :killinme
:ty :ty :ty :ty :ty :ty
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 07:25 PM
Most OP's dont recognize distinctions - it bothers them to do so - in this manner I think we fail to recognize legitimate biblical wording and theology
Most OP's dont recognize distinctions - it bothers them to do so - in this manner I think we fail to recognize legitimate biblical wording and theology
What are some clear distinctions that you see in the Word, SG? Can the word persons be use if properly qualified?
mizpeh
02-28-2007, 07:28 PM
I would contend most OP's dont know thier own doctrine or anyone elses for that matter - GODHEAD stuff is harder than we want to give it credit for - typically oneness folks do one of two things when discussing the GODHEAD - call names or run away -
they dont have to, there are better options but this has been my experience by and large - - now then my statements here will warrant the same question it always does when the OP doctrine is in any way "tainted"
"Are you a trinitarian?" :drawguns
Godhead stuff isn't hard, incarnation stuff is where the controversy is.
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 07:29 PM
Okay Bro the term persons usually fowls us up (us – meaning “oneness Pentecostals”) the term persons is better defined and really contemporized by modern Trinitarians like the Assemblies of God for instance, as “aspects” – many AG ministers refer to the distinctions: Father, Son and Holy Ghost as “aspects” in lieu of the traditional “persons”… Although they are okay with “persons” – because they understand the meaning of the tern
The term “persons” was used instead of manifestations to distinct the GODHEAD(Father, Son and Holy Ghost) from other manifestations such as the “Burning Bush” – because they felt these where more like aspects and the make up of GOD, and therefore these distinctions, or aspects of GOD, deserved more credence than the burning bush or other such “manifestations” In this manner “persons” was finally decided upon although not used in original Trinitarian language! Its actually not a bad word though, if you understand the purpose of the word, and the intention of it… Instead of my words let me quote a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary – J Hampton Keathley
Let me supply a reference: From a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary
Trinity (Triunity) of God
by
J. Hampton Keathley III
Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons tends to detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.
It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”
In this better explained definition of “persons”– I really don’t see the doctrinal conflict Here is why – we have to notice the distinctions of GOD for instance
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 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.
1Co 15:28 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.
See here that the Son will subject Himself to the Father – these are distinctive roles – manifestations “persons” in GOD - if we fail to recognize them – just to preserve our view – we do ourselves a dis-service – think of another portion where divinity divided performed distinct functions
(Luk 3:21) Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
(Luk 3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Here we see GOD acting in three persons – by that I mean they are totally separate, and distinct in their presentation – revealing HIMSELF to humanity
(Luk 23:34) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Here we again see JESUS – who is GOD – pray to His Father – “forgive them” Listen to me from the moment of HIS birth to this day JESUS was always GOD! Even on the cross it was JESUS! The distinction of persons existed - even though we don’t completely understand it. This is not classic trinitarianism – but instead it simply notes the distinctions of the roles found in the one true GOD – roles, manifestations “persons”
I am probably a little different in my thinking in that I do not believe the flesh of Jesus was God during his earthly ministry. However, I believe that there is no longer any division or distinction post assention.
mizpeh
02-28-2007, 07:48 PM
(Luk 23:34) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Here we again see JESUS – who is GOD – pray to His Father – “forgive them” Listen to me from the moment of HIS birth to this day JESUS was always GOD! Even on the cross it was JESUS! The distinction of persons existed - even though we don’t completely understand it. This is not classic trinitarianism – but instead it simply notes the distinctions of the roles found in the one true GOD – roles, manifestations “persons
I agreed with most of your post concerning the distinctions of the manifestations of God until the last sentence. I've spent some time on CARM and a "person" means someone who can say "I" or is a "self". A person is not the same as a role or manifestion or mode.
mizpeh
02-28-2007, 07:50 PM
Most OP's dont recognize distinctions - it bothers them to do so - in this manner I think we fail to recognize legitimate biblical wording and theology
SG,
You are making generalizations without proof. The OP's you know may not recognize distinctions but others do.
I am probably a little different in my thinking in that I do not believe the flesh of Jesus was God during his earthly ministry. However, I believe that there is no longer any division or distinction post assention.
Is his glorified body, God, Matt?
rrford
02-28-2007, 08:07 PM
Is his glorified body, God, Matt?
Is His glorified body flesh, Daniel?
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 08:07 PM
Is his glorified body, God, Matt?
No more answers till you answer my questions. :tease
Overheard: Mizpeh states
I would qualify it, by saying God became flesh or God was made flesh. Whatever happened to Jesus, happened to God because Jesus was God made in the likeness of men:Phil 2:7 If you believe the Son of man, Jesus Christ, is God Mic5:2, then yes, God did in fact taste of death, God learned obedience, etc as a man.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Nahum
02-28-2007, 08:09 PM
No more answers till you answer my questions. :tease
If we ignore him, will he stop talking? :killinme
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 08:10 PM
If we ignore him, will he stop talking? :killinme
Will who stop talking?? :heeheehee
rrford
02-28-2007, 08:10 PM
If we ignore him, will he stop talking? :killinme
Let's see: A poster who has over 1200 posts in less than 2 weeks? Very, very doubtful he will stop talking. :killinme
Is His glorified body flesh, Daniel?
Technically yes ... technically no ... too many technicalities to answer definitively RR. *wink* :tease
Nahum
02-28-2007, 08:15 PM
Let's see: A poster who has over 1200 posts in less than 2 weeks? Very, very doubtful he will stop talking. :killinme
Well, we've been educating him in the ways of true Apostolc doctrine, I guess
reading 1200 posts are worth it if he finally sees the light. :bliss
Well, we've been educating him in the ways of true Apostolc doctrine, I guess
reading 1200 posts are worth it if he finally sees the light. :bliss
Eat my dust PP .. but do you really have 560+ posts ....[Swordsman] ??? And who's more Oneness you or me???? :killinme :tease
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 08:17 PM
Well, we've been educating him in the ways of true Apostolc doctrine, I guess
reading 1200 posts are worth it if he finally sees the light. :bliss
As long as his doctrine is not light.
As long as his doctrine is not light.
I agreed with TrulyBlessed post this morning does that make me a lightweight, Matty boy?
stmatthew
02-28-2007, 08:20 PM
I agreed with TrulyBlessed post this morning does that make me a lightweight, Matty boy?
Did someone ask a question??? :bliss
sola gratia
02-28-2007, 08:22 PM
well - JESUS was not yet glorified when Thomas saw HIM, and he called HIM GOD, though he was resurrected - not glorified - When JESUS was body - he called HIMSELF the "I AM" - the body says the fullness of the GODHEAD was in him bodily - so I cannot agree with that
in relation to him not being in forms of "distinction" now - Not sure how you can state that
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 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.
1Co 15:28 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 is a futuristic event yet to happen -so I must contend the distinctions at least exist in the now
mizpeh
02-28-2007, 08:27 PM
If we ignore him, will he stop talking? :killinme
I think he is looking for a talk show to host!:heeheehee
He's getting experience on this forum.
TB .... silences his critics ....
It goes back to the role of the Holy Spirit as a servant and the means by which God raised up Jesus from the dead. I think you're intelligent enough and know the Bible well enough to know that there is a distinction made between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
Brett Prince weighs in on TB's original statement:
At times, TB, I think I get a glimpse of what you are saying, but this statement throws me.
I see that God is a Spirit. That is His substance. His nature is holy. Thus God is A Holy Spirit. There is none than can approach until His holiness, nor His magnitude and power, thus we establish absolute the definite article "the," and describe God as The Holy Spirit. I see no distinction there. I see FAR MORE distinction when I look at Jesus Christ because of the flesh aspect, but consider that God's Word was manifest or BECAME flesh to be observed by humankind.
You make less and less sense than in the first post.
HOW can you be "more Oneness" than anyone?
:dunno
Maybe He can define it more clearly. Many Oneness folks are Oneness by association not revelation.
I know when I share the truth the folks that have been Oneness for 30 years get a blank look.
Nathan Eckstadt
RRFord admits to distinctions:
Indeed there are distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Just not some of the distinctions being alluded to be some posters.
If we are saying there are 3 persons, with all that entails, then we leave distinctions behind and enter into trinitarian theology. However, if we say distinctions, and realize there is but one God manifest in different ways then we have a good basic understanding of the Godhead.
rrford
02-28-2007, 10:14 PM
TB .... silences his critics ....
Daniel, believe it or not context is important. It is quite ridiculous to paste a post from another thread here without any context to support it. All you are doing is confusing the issue and driving your post count up. Neither of which means a whole lot.
Further, you are entitled to your opinion that his post silenced his critics. I disagree wholeheartedly. But of course, I am learning that you do not understand the real means of topical debate and conversation. Carry on.
rrford
02-28-2007, 10:15 PM
RRFord admits to distinctions:
DUH! Big red truck!
Who in their right mind would not admit to distinctions?
Daniel, believe it or not context is important. It is quite ridicualous to paste a post from another thread here without any context to support it. All you are doing is confusing the issue and driving your post count up. Neither of which means a whole lot.
Further, you are entitled to your opinion that his post silenced his critics. I disagree wholeheartedly. But of course, I am learning that you do not understand the real means of topical debate and conversation. Carry on.
I think your post speaks for itself RR.
DUH! Big red truck!
Who in their right mind would not admit to distinctions?
Some posters in this thread have already expressed that some OPs are not comfortable with making distinctions.
rrford
02-28-2007, 10:18 PM
I think your post speaks for itself RR.
Of course you do. I also think your style speaks for itself. It is one I am growing quite weary of and one of the reasons I do not post much on these theological threads. You twist things to say what folks did not say and then expect a response. Go figure...
BoredOutOfMyMind
02-28-2007, 10:20 PM
Daniel, your continual dodging questions, and yet wanting to make TB look bad is not good here.
It is close to being a bash on TB thread.
THAT is NOT what this board is about.
BOOM, I support what he said.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:22 PM
OK ... FREE FOR ALL ...
This morning and afternoon a feeding frenzy took place when TB made the following remark last night in THE THREAD ....
Swords came out ... and tensions rose high at the prospect that TB made distinctions in the Godhead ....
and so it BEGS TO BE ASKED ...
1. Are there distinctions to be made when we discuss and explain the Godhead?
2. Are some Oneness folks spooked by the usage of Father, Son and Holy Ghost terminology ... especially when used in the same sentence?
3. Must we be able to fully explain God?
4. Does our salvation hinge on our views of the Godhead?
5. Did God die on the cross? - That's WH's question.
:beatdeadhorse
Yes
I don't know
No
I don't know
Yes
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:29 PM
No sir... I was raised oneness and still consider myself oneness.
But I have begun to weigh wether there is a more of a distinction to be made between the son and the father.
The scriptures I posted in another thread along these lines are enough, in my opinion, to make one stand back and take another look.
Where do I stand? Where I was raised basically... but I am in a process of studying this issue out for myself. It really appears to me that the apostles seem to have drawn a strong distinction between the father and the son.
In all things... I desire that the word of God ring true and every man... beginning with myself... a liar.
I believe what the word says. It is just a process of fearful study and prayer to actually find out what that might be.
I don't see what the problem is...why do folks act as though Oneness does not acknowledge a distinction between Father and Son? Ask Bernard or Segraves...they'll both acknowledge a distinction
bump for SG ...
How would you qualify THE TERM PERSON so that it is acceptable to the rest of us???
If the term "person" means "mask" or "role" then we can say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three "masks" that God wears or three "roles" that God performs.
Felicity
02-28-2007, 10:34 PM
If the term "person" means "mask" or "role" then we can say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three "masks" that God wears or three "roles" that God performs. Roles....... right. That word came to my mind reading some of these posts.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:36 PM
If the term "person" means "mask" or "role" then we can say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three "masks" that God wears or three "roles" that God performs.
The term person does not usually mean role or mask. It's generally used to mean individuals like you and I are two different individuals
Felicity
02-28-2007, 10:38 PM
The term person does not usually mean role or mask. It's generally used to mean individuals like you and I are two different individualsIt can have a broader meaning than that. Ever hear tell of the word "persona"?
The term person does not usually mean role or mask. It's generally used to mean individuals like you and I are two different individuals
In today's terminology, we usually think of a person as an individual.
Has the term person always meant that?
He who?
You gave a statement that did not answer any questions. Also this post from the beginning was in oppostion to one who has yet to post here. When it was about as bad as could be with 8 or 9 direct questions you dodged, you then post more quotes as if you expect either a fight or response.
:bored
BOOM ... please go to this thread (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=554&page=114) to see the genesis of this thread .. Felicity will vouch that I supported what TB said 100 % ... PM TB if you like ... Sam knows I have no qualms about alternate views on Oneness.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:41 PM
In today's terminology, we usually think of a person as an individual.
Has the term person always meant that?
The term Person? Yes pretty much. The origin of the term Person? No. It comes from Persona which means an actor in a play or a mask. But Theologically speaking Trinitarians and OPs use the term to mean the hypostasis or the individual ego...the self..It certainly helps to have a theological discussion with others if we can all agree on terms :ty
BoredOutOfMyMind
02-28-2007, 10:42 PM
BOOM ... please go to this thread (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=554&page=114) to see the genesis of this thread .. Felicity will vouch that I supported what TB said 100 % ... PM TB if you like ... Sam knows I have no qualms about alternate views on Oneness.
My apology then.
I read only THIS thread.
:ty
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:42 PM
It can have a broader meaning than that. Ever hear tell of the word "persona"?
Yes...see my other post. But we are not talking about persona. We are talking about the english word person and how it is used especially theologically. As I said, it makes things a lot easier when we can agree on terms and the word person theologically has been used for many years to mean the individual self
I'm still more Oneness than all of y'all!!!!
Felicity
02-28-2007, 10:44 PM
Yes...see my other post. But we are not talking about persona. We are talking about the english word person and how it is used especially theologically. As I said, it makes things a lot easier when we can agree on terms and the word person theologically has been used for many years to mean the individual selfI was just making a point........ a valid one but if using that term throws you then it's okay. We'll just revert back to the standard.
Which is what by the way? :)
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:46 PM
I was just making a point........ a valid one but if using that term throws you then it's okay. We'll just revert back to the standard.
Which is what by the way? :)
I understood your point and thus I responded to it. It does not throw me. The point I am making is if we don't all speak the same langauge how can we understand each other? If some OP says "I believe in three persons" how am I supposed to know what he means if we are not in agreement?
The Standard, as I already stated is theologically for many years the term person has come to mean the hypostasis...the individual ego or self.
Felicity and Praxeas ... what say ye of Sola Gratias view of persons
Okay Bro the term persons usually fowls us up (us – meaning “oneness Pentecostals”) the term persons is better defined and really contemporized by modern Trinitarians like the Assemblies of God for instance, as “aspects” – many AG ministers refer to the distinctions: Father, Son and Holy Ghost as “aspects” in lieu of the traditional “persons”… Although they are okay with “persons” – because they understand the meaning of the tern
The term “persons” was used instead of manifestations to distinct the GODHEAD(Father, Son and Holy Ghost) from other manifestations such as the “Burning Bush” – because they felt these where more like aspects and the make up of GOD, and therefore these distinctions, or aspects of GOD, deserved more credence than the burning bush or other such “manifestations” In this manner “persons” was finally decided upon although not used in original Trinitarian language! Its actually not a bad word though, if you understand the purpose of the word, and the intention of it… Instead of my words let me quote a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary – J Hampton Keathley
Let me supply a reference: From a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary
Trinity (Triunity) of God
by
J. Hampton Keathley III
Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons tends to detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.
It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”
In this better explained definition of “persons”– I really don’t see the doctrinal conflict Here is why – we have to notice the distinctions of GOD for instance
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 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.
1Co 15:28 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.
See here that the Son will subject Himself to the Father – these are distinctive roles – manifestations “persons” in GOD - if we fail to recognize them – just to preserve our view – we do ourselves a dis-service – think of another portion where divinity divided performed distinct functions
(Luk 3:21) Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
(Luk 3:22) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Here we see GOD acting in three persons – by that I mean they are totally separate, and distinct in their presentation – revealing HIMSELF to humanity
(Luk 23:34) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Here we again see JESUS – who is GOD – pray to His Father – “forgive them” Listen to me from the moment of HIS birth to this day JESUS was always GOD! Even on the cross it was JESUS! The distinction of persons existed - even though we don’t completely understand it. This is not classic trinitarianism – but instead it simply notes the distinctions of the roles found in the one true GOD – roles, manifestations “persons”
Yes...see my other post. But we are not talking about persona. We are talking about the english word person and how it is used especially theologically. As I said, it makes things a lot easier when we can agree on terms and the word person theologically has been used for many years to mean the individual self
I'm not trying to argue. But, didn't our word "person" used to mean "persona" or have the same meaning as the word "persona" and isn't that what Trinitarians mean when they use the word "person" in their creed?
Don't trinitarians (and I guess it's impossible to lump all trinitarians together like it would be impossible to lump all oneness together) but anyway, don't most trinitarians believe:
1. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the holy Ghost is Lord but there is only one Lord.
2. Jesus lives in our heart, the Holy Spirit lives in our heart, the Spirit of God lives in our heart, the Spirit of the Father lives in our heart, but only one Spirit lives in our heart.
3. Jesus is the visible manifestation of God and the only way we will see God is in the person of Jesus Christ.
Felicity
02-28-2007, 10:54 PM
I've heard the "persons" angle discussed before and I think it has some merit myself.
But then I'm not trinitarianoid. ;) Hehe. I'm secure in my understanding of the Godhead. My understanding is basic ....... I'm not a theologian or a Godhead whiz ....... but nothing can sway me from my distinctive of being a Oneness adherent.
2Ti 1:12 ..... nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:54 PM
AOG ministers that say aspects are not really being Trinitarian. They are being closer to modalism or Oneness. I have a friend who was a member of my church until they decided against standards. Eventually they moved to northern Ca and attended an AOG. She did a lot of talking with the Pastor and he decided the term "person" was probably not the best word so instead he said "aspects"...however that is really NOT the modern theological useage of the term and that is also NOT the AOG official position.
The term Person theologically means an individual self....the ego..the WHO you are as opposed to the WHAT you are
When Trinitarians say "Persons" they do NOT mean "God is one person who has three manifestations"...they really do believe each so called manifestation is indeed an individual self/person/who
We believe there is 1 who who is 1 what (Divine) and became a Human by adding a second Human nature (a what) to His own person (who)
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 10:56 PM
I'm not trying to argue. But, didn't our word "person" used to mean "persona" or have the same meaning as the word "persona" and isn't that what Trinitarians mean when they use the word "person" in their creed?
Don't trinitarians (and I guess it's impossible to lump all trinitarians together like it would be impossible to lump all oneness together) but anyway, don't most trinitarians believe:
1. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the holy Ghost is Lord but there is only one Lord.
2. Jesus lives in our heart, the Holy Spirit lives in our heart, the Spirit of God lives in our heart, the Spirit of the Father lives in our heart, but only one Spirit lives in our heart.
3. Jesus is the visible manifestation of God and the only way we will see God is in the person of Jesus Christ.
No person did not mean Persona, Rather person COMES from the word persona but theologically speaking....because we are discussing theology....the term Person has come to be used to express the individual self..the WHO. That is how the word person has been used theologically for quite a while now.
And really...the issue is really about confusion. When you talk to a Trinitarian are you going to say "Oh yeah. I believe in three persons too"? When you and I both know to him the word person means an individual self?
Felicity
02-28-2007, 10:59 PM
No person did not mean Persona, Rather person COMES from the word persona but theologically speaking....because we are discussing theology....the term Person has come to be used to express the individual self..the WHO. That is how the word person has been used theologically for quite a while now.
And really...the issue is really about confusion. When you talk to a Trinitarian are you going to say "Oh yeah. I believe in three persons too"? When you and I both know to him the word person means an individual self?We talked to a trinitarian pastor at length about the whole Godhead issue and he said that when they talk about "persons" they're not talking about person in the way we normally think ......... but more along the "persona" line of thought.
Speaking of the time when Jesus was baptized in Jordan, it is my opinion that only John the Baptist saw the dove (it was a predicted sign for him to recognize the Messiah John 1:32-34) and only Jesus heard that (inner) voice saying, "you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22).
I've heard the "persons" angle discussed before and I think it has some merit myself.
But then I'm not trinitarianoid. ;) Hehe. I'm secure in my understanding of the Godhead. My understanding is basic ....... I'm not a theologian or a Godhead whiz ....... but nothing can sway me from my distinctive of being a Oneness adherent.
2Ti 1:12 ..... nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Me too Felicity ...
In my opinion, this has always been a silly and archaic game of semantics.
It's old.
With the exception of some hardcore trinitarian tri-theists ...
most modern trinitarians believe IN ONE GOD.
No Trinitarian will win a One God debate because they believe it too.
What is troublesome is the pride and fear on both sides finally realizing they have more in common than different.
I am very comfortable with the idea that my infinite God cannot be defined by finite explanations ... but the bible doesn't say we have to fully understand Him.
Just to KNOW HIM MORE AND MORE.
My 2 cents.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:03 PM
We talked to a trinitarian pastor at length about the whole Godhead issue and he said that when they talk about "persons" they're not talking about person in the way we normally think ......... but more along the "persona" line of thought.
I've debated with Trinitarians including seminary students and professors. When they say "we don't mean persons the way we normally think" they usually mean "not people" or in other words not human persons.
But the vast majority if Trinitarians mean person to mean individual or self or who.
In all the Trinitarian books, debates, cult ministries etc etc they use the term person to mean an individual self, the who, the ego, the hypostasis :-)
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:04 PM
Me too Felicity ...
In my opinion, this has always been a silly and archaic game of semantics.
It's old.
With the exception of some hardcore trinitarian tri-theists ...
most modern trinitarians believe IN ONE GOD.
No Trinitarian will win a One God debate because they believe it too.
What is troublesome is the pride and fear on both sides finally realizing they have more in common than different.
I am very comfortable with the idea that my infinite God cannot be defined by finite explanations ... but the bible doesn't say we have to fully understand Him.
Just to KNOW HIM MORE AND MORE.
My 2 cents.
ALL Trinitarians believe in One God... They believe there are three Hypostasis or selfs who all share the same Divine nature
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:06 PM
I think the real problem is many Trinitarians have no idea what they believe or what OPs believe and many OPs have no idea what Trinitarians believe or what OPs believe. They just repeat what they hear like when we learned math by learning to memorize 2+2=4 rather than understanding WHY
Now ... which model do I love ... to try to approach understanding and explaining Him??? ... THE ONENESS MODEL ... its my comfort zone ... easier to understand and explain to others ....IMHO
so I'm still more ONENESS THAN OF Y'ALL.
I think the real problem is many Trinitarians have no idea what they believe or what OPs believe and many OPs have no idea what Trinitarians believe or what OPs believe. They just repeat what they hear like when we learned math by learning to memorize 2+2=4 rather than understanding WHY
So why do we argue and put one another down?
Bryan
02-28-2007, 11:08 PM
I have found that most oneness folks are uncomfortable with the language of the bible. Truly Blessed spoke it well..and folks freaked out.
Blessing from God the Father and from his son Jesus Christ to ya all.this is true.. and other than that.. I'm not touching it!!
ALL Trinitarians believe in One God... They believe there are three Hypostasis or selfs who all share the same Divine nature
If that's what they believe why do you bother Prax racking your brain ... trying to fight them ....:dunno
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:08 PM
So why do we argue and put one another down?
who is putting someone down?
this is true.. and other than that.. I'm not touching it!!
then maybe you're not Oneness enough, Berk!!!!!
Bryan
02-28-2007, 11:11 PM
then maybe you're not Oneness enough, Berk!!!!!I am oneness. Lol.
I find it quite humorous when a preacher will mention the Father and the Son in his sermon.. then go on a tangent about how "...we have a revelay-shun!! that-uh!! Gawwd!! is-uhh!! one..." :)
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:12 PM
If that's what they believe why do you bother Prax racking your brain ... trying to fight them ....:dunno
I'm usually defending what we believe against their attacks. It's called apologetics.
However my point is all Trinitarians say they believe in One God. It's part of their doctrinal position. All Trinitarians believe God is three persons, not people, persons...three individual selfs or who's..Those that don't are probably really Modalists that are confused about the doctrine of the Trinity.
I am oneness. Lol.
I find it quite humorous when a preacher will mention the Father and the Son in his sermon.. then go on a tangent about how "...we have a revelay-shun!! that-uh!! Gawwd!! is-uhh!! one..." :)
it's because they're worried about the TRUTH POLICE ....
Bryan
02-28-2007, 11:13 PM
it's because they're worried about the TRUTH POLICE ....I think many are insecure in their "revelation", having personal doubts about a "revelation" that was handed down to them from their elders, and not God Himself. Not broadbrushing, JMO in some cases.
I'm usually defending what we believe against their attacks. It's called apologetics.
However my point is all Trinitarians say they believe in One God. It's part of their doctrinal position. All Trinitarians believe God is three persons, not people, persons...three individual selfs or who's..Those that don't are probably really Modalists that are confused about the doctrine of the Trinity.
What are you sorry for Prax?????
Felicity
02-28-2007, 11:15 PM
Me too Felicity ...
In my opinion, this has always been a silly and archaic game of semantics.
It's old.
With the exception of some hardcore trinitarian tri-theists ...
most modern trinitarians believe IN ONE GOD.
No Trinitarian will win a One God debate because they believe it too.
What is troublesome is the pride and fear on both sides finally realizing they have more in common than different.
I am very comfortable with the idea that my infinite God cannot be defined by finite explanations ... but the bible doesn't say we have to fully understand Him.
Just to KNOW HIM MORE AND MORE.
My 2 cents.Well we each have misunderstanding of what one another believes. A lot of them think that we're Jesus only while many Oneness people think that all trinitarians believe they're going to see 3 thrones in heaven. There's a lot of mis-perception.
It's interesting to me that there wasn't much teaching on the "Oneness" in Scripture even though the New Testament church was full of people who had been wrapped up in and bound by pagan religions with a plethora of gods and goddesses. It didn't seem to be the issue in the NT church that Oneness people have made it today. That's how it seems to me anyhow.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:15 PM
What are you sorry for Prax?????
That I voted to keep ya?
Jekyll
02-28-2007, 11:15 PM
Of course you do. I also think your style speaks for itself. It is one I am growing quite weary of and one of the reasons I do not post much on these theological threads. You twist things to say what folks did not say and then expect a response. Go figure...
At risk of being banned
I am using great restraint in not disparaging DanielAlicea or making fun of his name or starting a uh..._______ match.
Conversing with this individual is like trying to teach your children values, ethics, and personal integrity...then having the spoiled bratty p.k. use filthy language, sport wicked attitudes and *wink* *wink* get away with it because of who their parents are...then make fun of your children in front of the other kids for being virtuous...(and I know he is a former UPC preacher's son...maybe he was even like this, but I don't know...)
Theoretical arugments and proofs are corkscrewed by this individual, taken apart and reassembled only to confuse issues even further...
Go ahead, "ADMIN! ADMIN! HE IS ATTACKING ME!! GREAT christian love and attitude HE is showing!!!"
You, sir can do your best to cloud minds, create paths that lead to places other than salvation (you wouldn't do that, would you?), and tickle all of the itching ears you can...
But to masquerade as a finder of truth and stimulator of thought is a farce...:nah
I think many are insecure in their "revelation", having personal doubts about a "revelation" that was handed down to them from their elders, and not God Himself. Not broadbrushing, JMO in some cases.
Absolutely Berk ... the Truth Police is not an institution ... it's a mindset ...
Bryan
02-28-2007, 11:17 PM
At risk of being banned
I am using great restraint in not disparaging DanielAlicea or making fun of his name or starting a uh..._______ match.
Conversing with this individual is like trying to teach your children values, ethics, and personal integrity...then having the spoiled bratty p.k. use filthy language, sport wicked attitudes and *wink* *wink* get away with it because of who their parents are...then make fun of your children in front of the other kids for being virtuous...(and I know he is a former UPC preacher's son...maybe he was even like this, but I don't know...)
Theoretical arugments and proofs are corkscrewed by this individual, taken apart and reassembled only to confuse issues even further...
Go ahead, "ADMIN! ADMIN! HE IS ATTACKING ME!! GREAT christian love and attitude HE is showing!!!"
You, sir can do your best to cloud minds, create paths that lead to places other than salvation (you wouldn't do that, would you?), and tickle all of the itching ears you can...
But to masquerade as a finder of truth and stimulator of thought is a farce...:nah
ohhh...
At risk of being banned
I am using great restraint in not disparaging DanielAlicea or making fun of his name or starting a uh..._______ match.
Conversing with this individual is like trying to teach your children values, ethics, and personal integrity...then having the spoiled bratty p.k. use filthy language, sport wicked attitudes and *wink* *wink* get away with it because of who their parents are...then make fun of your children in front of the other kids for being virtuous...(and I know he is a former UPC preacher's son...maybe he was even like this, but I don't know...)
Theoretical arugments and proofs are corkscrewed by this individual, taken apart and reassembled only to confuse issues even further...
Go ahead, "ADMIN! ADMIN! HE IS ATTACKING ME!! GREAT christian love and attitude HE is showing!!!"
You, sir can do your best to cloud minds, create paths that lead to places other than salvation (you wouldn't do that, would you?), and tickle all of the itching ears you can...
But to masquerade as a finder of truth and stimulator of thought is a farce...:nah
I love you too Jekyll. :ty
J-Roc
02-28-2007, 11:25 PM
and I know he is a former UPC preacher's son...maybe he was even like this, but I don't know...)
I can attest that he was banned from Sunday School at the age of 11 for getting his Sunday School teacher upset...the ban from Sunday School class lasted only 3 weeks....and Dan lifted his own ban by just showing up. :heeheehee
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:25 PM
Hey....what happened to my homies? The three amigos?
I can attest that he was banned from Sunday School at the age of 11 for getting his Sunday School teacher upset...the ban from Sunday School class lasted only 3 weeks....and Dan lifted his own ban by just showing up. :heeheehee
J ... we're supposed to be friends !!!!!!!!!!! e tu brutus.....
who is putting someone down?
Praxeas,
I did not say that you personally were putting someone down. I meant we collectively tend to do that. We argue. We put one another down. Some folks say that OP's believe that Jesus is His own Father or that Jesus at His baptism in Jordan was a ventriloquist and threw His voice so it appeared to come from heaven. Over the years I have referred to some folks as Church of Gods or Assembly of Gods or three god people. I haven't done that for quite a while. I have been going to a trinity church for almost a year. Before that I went to another trinity church for 14 years. These folks don't believe in three gods. They believe in one God, the same one God I believe in. I've given up on the put downs and arguments.
J-Roc
02-28-2007, 11:27 PM
I can attest that he was banned from Sunday School at the age of 11 for getting his Sunday School teacher upset...the ban from Sunday School class lasted only 3 weeks....and Dan lifted his own ban by just showing up. :heeheehee
To top it all off, I was guilty by association. :ranting
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:28 PM
Praxeas,
I did not say that you personally were putting someone down. I meant we collectively tend to do that. We argue. We put one another down. Some folks say that OP's believe that Jesus is His own Father or that Jesus at His baptism in Jordan was a ventriloquist and threw His voice so it appeared to come from heaven. Over the years I have referred to some folks as Church of Gods or Assembly of Gods or three god people. I haven't done that for quite a while. I have been going to a trinity church for almost a year. Before that I went to another trinity church for 14 years. These folks don't believe in three gods. They believe in one God, the same one God I believe in. I've given up on the put downs and arguments.
Yeah, there is no point in lobbing those kind of insults and pejoratives. In fact if you were trying ot convert a soul it does more harm than good anyways
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:29 PM
That I voted to keep ya?
Hmmm and DA isn't even gonna thank me? Im hurt:violin
Hmmm and DA isn't even gonna thank me? Im hurt:violin
thank you Praxeas ... :highfive
tell me it was a lop-sided vote ......
Jekyll , I'm sure would love to bring the issue to the floor, however.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:39 PM
thank you Praxeas ... :highfive
tell me it was a lop-sided vote ......
Jekyll , I'm sure would love to bring the issue to the floor, however.
Well.....yes......
At risk of being banned
I am using great restraint in not disparaging DanielAlicea or making fun of his name or starting a uh..._______ match.
Jekyll ... let me help you with my name ...
its Daniel, as in the Hebrew prophet and
my last name is a common Puerto Rican last name with roots from the Canary Islands ... it's pronounced ---- ALEE-SAY-UH.
What's yours?
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:44 PM
Jekyll ... let me help you with my name ...
its Daniel, as in the Hebrew prophet and
my last name is a common Puerto Rican last name with roots from the Canary Islands ... it's pronounced ---- ALEE-SAY-UH.
What's yours?
anyone call you Alice for short?
anyone call you Alice for short?
No.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:46 PM
No.
How about Alice for long?
Jekyll
02-28-2007, 11:46 PM
Jekyll ... let me help you with my name ...
its Daniel, as in the Hebrew prophet and
my last name is a common Puerto Rican last name with roots from the Canary Islands ... it's pronounced ---- ALEE-SAY-UH.
What's yours?
Nice try :nah
Nice try :nah
You're taking this personally. You really shouldn't.
Jekyll
02-28-2007, 11:51 PM
You're taking this personally. You really shouldn't.
Nope, just don't take the bait, don't really care to converse, just doesn't matter really :dunno
Jekyll
02-28-2007, 11:53 PM
thank you Praxeas ... :highfive
tell me it was a lop-sided vote ......
Jekyll , I'm sure would love to bring the issue to the floor, however.
And for the record, IF this is about you possibly being banned, I don't care, either...if they want you around more power to them...
Nope, just don't take the bait, don't really care to converse, just doesn't matter really :dunno
I hope that was cathartic.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:54 PM
And for the record, IF this is about you possibly being banned, I don't care, either...if they want you around more power to them...
NO we just took a vote....I didn't say what we were voting on :killinme
Jekyll
02-28-2007, 11:55 PM
NO we just took a vote....I didn't say what we were voting on :killinme
Oh great!!:doh
J-Roc
02-28-2007, 11:56 PM
And for the record, IF this is about you possibly being banned, I don't care, either...if they want you around more power to them...
NO we just took a vote....I didn't say what we were voting on :killinme
It was a vote to promote him to Admin for having such a high post count... :killinme
It was a vote to promote him to Admin for having such a high post count... :killinme
Dan for Honorary Admin.
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:58 PM
It was a vote to promote him to Admin for having such a high post count... :killinme
Actually we were thinking of promoting him to his own forum...all by himself :killinme
Now be gone ... you guys are killing my thread ...
P.S.
I'm still more Oneness than all of y'all!!!!
Actually we were thinking of promoting him to his own forum...all by himself :killinme
A promotion of sorts ...???
Praxeas
02-28-2007, 11:59 PM
Now be gone ... you guys are killing my thread ...
P.S.
I'm still more Oneness than all of y'all!!!!
I think I've already proven that I'M more Oneness than you all....go home southerners
Bryan
02-28-2007, 11:59 PM
I think I've already proven that I'M more Oneness than you all....go home southerners
who's a southerner?
I think I've already proven that I'M more Oneness than you all....go home southerners
You mean you like to go Oneness Ninja on trinitarians ....
Truly Blessed
03-01-2007, 12:00 AM
Augustine himself was not comfortable with the term "person" in reference to the Father and Holy Ghost. He wrote, "When we use the term "persons" we do not mean "individuals". I realize that some Trinitarians have developed this idea of three "persons" meaning "individuals", but that was not the thought being expressed by Augustine, according to his own writings.
I think that on the other hand many Oneness people have gone to the opposite extreme of believing only in the existence of Jesus Christ, which is contrary to NT teaching. God (Father) is not just a substance, He is a being, albeit a spirit being, with intelligence and attributes that are manifested in the human being He created. As a spirit being, which is the highest form of existence even for ourselves, we see over and over again God taking on various forms of matter. Sometimes as fire, wind, cloud, etc. We know that He took on form that was visible to Adam and Eve in Eden, and they heard Him walking in the garden. He has voice and able to interact with man. Jesus declared on more than one occasion that He had seen the Father, so we know that the Father is a being who can be seen. John saw Him seated in heaven. Obvious what he saw was not a person, but let's not forget that man was made in the image of God. So what is that spirit image that was replicated in man?
J-Roc
03-01-2007, 12:00 AM
I think I've already proven that I'M more Oneness than you all....go home southerners
:highfive
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:00 AM
who's a southerner?
They are easy to tell...all they talk about is iced tea, fried chicken and they say "y'all" every other word
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:01 AM
You mean you like to go Oneness Ninja on trinitarians ....
Im so Oneness I go Oneness Ninja on other Oneness :killinme
J-Roc
03-01-2007, 12:02 AM
Augustine himself was not comfortable with the term "person" in reference to the Father and Holy Ghost. He wrote, "When we use the term "persons" we do not mean "individuals". I realize that some Trinitarians have developed this idea of three "persons" meaning "individuals", but that was not the thought being expressed by Augustine, according to his own writings.
I think that on the other hand many Oneness people have gone to the opposite extreme of believing only in the existence of Jesus Christ, which is contrary to NT teaching. God (Father) is not just a substance, He is a being, albeit a spirit being, with intelligence and attributes that are manifested in the human being He created. As a spirit being, which is the highest form of existence even for ourselves, we see over and over again God taking on various forms of matter. Sometimes as fire, wind, cloud, etc. We know that He took on form that was visible to Adam and Eve in Eden, and they heard Him walking in the garden. He has voice and able to interact with man. Jesus declared on more than one occasion that He had seen the Father, so we know that the Father is a being who can be seen. John saw Him seated in heaven. Obvious what he saw was not a person, but let's not forget that man was made in the image of God. So what is that spirit image that was replicated in man?
hmmmm...food for thought!
Bryan
03-01-2007, 12:02 AM
They are easy to tell...all they talk about is iced tea, fried chicken and they say "y'all" every other word
I am South of Nor Cal and North of So Cal... and I looove iced tea (sweet tea), fried chicken, and I say "y'all" !!!! :ranting
Augustine himself was not comfortable with the term "person" in reference to the Father and Holy Ghost. He wrote, "When we use the term "persons" we do not mean "individuals". I realize that some Trinitarians have developed this idea of three "persons" meaning "individuals", but that was not the thought being expressed by Augustine, according to his own writings.
I think that on the other hand many Oneness people have gone to the opposite extreme of believing only in the existence of Jesus Christ, which is contrary to NT teaching. God (Father) is not just a substance, He is a being, albeit a spirit being, with intelligence and attributes that are manifested in the human being He created. As a spirit being, which is the highest form of existence even for ourselves, we see over and over again God taking on various forms of matter. Sometimes as fire, wind, cloud, etc. We know that He took on form that was visible to Adam and Eve in Eden, and they heard Him walking in the garden. He has voice and able to interact with man. Jesus declared on more than one occasion that He had seen the Father, so we know that the Father is a being who can be seen. John saw Him seated in heaven. Obvious what he saw was not a person, but let's not forget that man was made in the image of God. So what is that spirit image that was replicated in man?
Truly Blessed has stated truth ... some have gone to the extreme of only believing in the existence of Jesus Christ.
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:04 AM
I am South of Nor Cal and North of So Cal... and I looove iced tea (sweet tea), fried chicken, and I say "y'all" !!!! :ranting
You're confused maybe?
Bryan
03-01-2007, 12:06 AM
You're confused maybe?
about what, location?
about what, location?
No ... watch it .. Berk ... he's about to go Oneness Ninja on you ....
Bryan
03-01-2007, 12:08 AM
No ... watch it .. Berk ... he's about to go Oneness Ninja on you ....
Naw man... he's not.. lol
Good night J, Berk, Jekyll, and Prax ... God bless you and remember ...
I'M MORE ONENESS THAN ALL OF Y'ALL!!!!!!!!!! COMBINED.
Bryan
03-01-2007, 12:12 AM
Good night J, Berk, Jekyll, and Prax ... God bless you and remember ...
IM MORE ONENESS THAN ALL OF Y'ALL!!!!!!!!!!
naw..
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:26 AM
Good night J, Berk, Jekyll, and Prax ... God bless you and remember ...
I'M MORE ONENESS THAN ALL OF Y'ALL!!!!!!!!!! COMBINED.
In your dreams
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:26 AM
Nite, Im out
mizpeh
03-01-2007, 05:43 AM
Augustine himself was not comfortable with the term "person" in reference to the Father and Holy Ghost. He wrote, "When we use the term "persons" we do not mean "individuals". I realize that some Trinitarians have developed this idea of three "persons" meaning "individuals", but that was not the thought being expressed by Augustine, according to his own writings.
I think that on the other hand many Oneness people have gone to the opposite extreme of believing only in the existence of Jesus Christ, which is contrary to NT teaching. God (Father) is not just a substance, He is a being, albeit a spirit being, with intelligence and attributes that are manifested in the human being He created. As a spirit being, which is the highest form of existence even for ourselves, we see over and over again God taking on various forms of matter. Sometimes as fire, wind, cloud, etc. We know that He took on form that was visible to Adam and Eve in Eden, and they heard Him walking in the garden. He has voice and able to interact with man. Jesus declared on more than one occasion that He had seen the Father, so we know that the Father is a being who can be seen. John saw Him seated in heaven. Obvious what he saw was not a person, but let's not forget that man was made in the image of God. So what is that spirit image that was replicated in man?
No man has seen God. Jesus is the express image of God the Father. When you see Jesus, you have seen the Father.
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 07:42 AM
I actually have a very good working knowledge of both views and can discuss them with a great deal of confidence and comfort. Some are correct in stating that oneness and Trinitarians have quite similar views on the GODHEAD, but that is limited to certain areas, other areas are quite different. The most problematic issue is the scriptural support of the views – both Trinitarian and oneness. We(op’s) think that we have all this revelation and textual support… do you really think the Trinitarians don’t think the same thing? LOL! What they are just a bunch of dummies or lemmings? LOL!
With great confidence and knowledge they can dismantle the oneness view as quickly as op’s try and dismantle theirs – so in that we have to realize the issues of the godhead, for all but the ostrich with his head in the sand, are very difficult – past examples of debates have been flawed by those involved – there are many who take a very spiritual and wise approach to GOD and HIS composition – in fact in many ways their scriptural approach to GOD is more supported – wisdom and respect are the mantra here – it can be shouted all day long they are pagans and their view comes from pagans(thanks David Bernard for that little bit of sentiment) but its not true……
No sir... I was raised oneness and still consider myself oneness.
But I have begun to weigh wether there is a more of a distinction to be made between the son and the father.
The scriptures I posted in another thread along these lines are enough, in my opinion, to make one stand back and take another look.
Where do I stand? Where I was raised basically... but I am in a process of studying this issue out for myself. It really appears to me that the apostles seem to have drawn a strong distinction between the father and the son.
In all things... I desire that the word of God ring true and every man... beginning with myself... a liar.
I believe what the word says. It is just a process of fearful study and prayer to actually find out what that might be.
At the very least, one must admit to a distinction between Jesus' humanity and the divine being that Jesus called "Father." Jesus did, after all, say He was going to ascend "to my God and to your God" (John 20:17).
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 08:15 AM
At the very least, one must admit to a distinction between Jesus' humanity and the divine being Jesus called "Father." Jesus did, after all, say He was going to ascend "to my God and to your God" (John 20:17).
more than that bro - we could really start a fire here
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 08:16 AM
AOG ministers that say aspects are not really being Trinitarian. They are being closer to modalism or Oneness. I have a friend who was a member of my church until they decided against standards. Eventually they moved to northern Ca and attended an AOG. She did a lot of talking with the Pastor and he decided the term "person" was probably not the best word so instead he said "aspects"...however that is really NOT the modern theological useage of the term and that is also NOT the AOG official position.
The term Person theologically means an individual self....the ego..the WHO you are as opposed to the WHAT you are
When Trinitarians say "Persons" they do NOT mean "God is one person who has three manifestations"...they really do believe each so called manifestation is indeed an individual self/person/who
We believe there is 1 who who is 1 what (Divine) and became a Human by adding a second Human nature (a what) to His own person (who)
Yes and no to this post – Trinitarians certainly place a greater deal of distinction, and are not at all modalistic as some suppose – the terms “persons” is not a mask or role – it is an individual. Praxeas is correct in that. The manner in which the “person” of the GODHEAD is individualized is where I think I would contend this post –
The aspect of GOD know as SON of God is recognized for HIS individuality, yes, HIS distinctive actions and existence, but not his separate ego, or being – in that manner HE is fully GOD, and cannot be separated in the manner where he is so individualized as is assumed by the post – I’d like to include a few thoughts from the Anthanasian Creed – he sort of was the one who first incorporated the word “person” –
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things is necessary to hold the universal Christian faith.
2. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. But this is the universal Christian faith: That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son; another of the Holy Ghost.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such is the Holy Ghost.
8. The Father is uncreated; the Son is uncreated; the Holy Ghost is uncreated.
9. The Father is incomprehensible; the Son is incomprehensible; the Holy Ghost is incomprehensible.
10. The Father is eternal; the Son is eternal; the Holy Ghost is eternal.
11. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal.
12. And also there are not three uncreated; nor three incomprehensible; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty; the Son is almighty; and the Holy Ghost is almighty.
14. And yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
16. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
From this it is important to note that the Trinitarians of this day and the creed of all to come was to note the distinctions present – and they are present biblically – none can argue that – but to maintain a strict monotheism. As you peruse this creed it is easily discernable that they do not mean to state there are these three guys hanging out in heaven – but that GOD in scripture is one GOD who seems to exist as Father, Son and Holy Ghost and has operated in this manner – not incarnationally – but eternally – There is scriptural support this – I have no beef with Anthanasia’s statement
I've debated with Trinitarians including seminary students and professors. When they say "we don't mean persons the way we normally think" they usually mean "not people" or in other words not human persons.
But the vast majority if Trinitarians mean person to mean individual or self or who.
In all the Trinitarian books, debates, cult ministries etc etc they use the term person to mean an individual self, the who, the ego, the hypostasis :-)
I would agree with this – but you have to qualify this more – modalists don’t mean when GOD morphed into the Son the throne was vacant – or the Father ceased to exist – so the statement is too narrow to be taken at face value
No person did not mean Persona, Rather person COMES from the word persona but theologically speaking....because we are discussing theology....the term Person has come to be used to express the individual self..the WHO. That is how the word person has been used theologically for quite a while now.
And really...the issue is really about confusion. When you talk to a Trinitarian are you going to say "Oh yeah. I believe in three persons too"? When you and I both know to him the word person means an individual self?
It does mean individual self on some levels but is also akin to persona of which it did originate – Don’t yoy believe the Son had some individualization to him? He prayed in that manner – not just incarnationally but eternally as well – to blur the lines of distinction on an eternal level is not biblical – does it make you a trinitarian? To some maybe – but we cannot ignore certain text just to preserve our title – you can be oneness and still acknowledge eternal distinctions
Yes I think there are distinctions in the manifestations of The True God.
But not distinctions in personages of three persons in a godhead.How are you defining "personages"?
What are some clear distinctions that you see in the Word, SG? Can the word persons be use if properly qualified?I don't think the English word "persons" is at all appropriate. It does not communicate the doctrine set forth in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds. A better English word would be the word "personas" (plural of the English word "persona"). This latter English word corresponds with the Latin word persona (and its plural, personae). The Latin word is a translation of the Greek word "prosopon." It (prosopon) is used 78 times in the KJV New Testament and has the following meanings:
the face
the front of the human head
countenance, look
the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and feelings
the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition
outward circumstances, external condition
used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one's judgment and treatment of men
the outward appearance of inanimate things
Cyril objected to the use of prosopon (and, for that matter, persona) because he felt it was too close to Sabellianism. (One of the mistakes various theologians made around that time was to go out of their way to distinguish their doctrine from whatever doctrine was out of favor at the time; they tried so hard not to sound like the disfavored doctrine that they ended up corrupting their own doctrine).
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 08:28 AM
At the very least, one must admit to a distinction between Jesus' humanity and the divine being Jesus called "Father." Jesus did, after all, say He was going to ascend "to my God and to your God" (John 20:17).
Eternal distinctions …..
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. (the WORD- JESUS CHRIST- was GOD and HE was with GOD at the same time – this is an eternal distinction)
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.(God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son)
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (JESUS wishes to return to the former glory he had with HIS Father- eternal distinction)
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son – HE was then made or a woman)
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (yes – I know not in the original text right! Well quite quoting Mark 16:16 to back up baptismal regeneration and then the trinnies will budge on this one! ROFL!)
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.(we still have this high priest – present tense)
It can have a broader meaning than that. Ever hear tell of the word "persona"?The word "persona" is not the word "person."
mizpeh
03-01-2007, 08:38 AM
It does mean individual self on some levels but is also akin to persona of which it did originate – Don’t yoy believe the Son had some individualization to him? He prayed in that manner – not just incarnationally but eternally as well – to blur the lines of distinction on an eternal level is not biblical – does it make you a trinitarian? To some maybe – but we cannot ignore certain text just to preserve our title – you can be oneness and still acknowledge eternal distinctions
Hello SG,
What do you mean when you say the Son prayed eternally? Are you saying there is an eternal aspect of God that prayed to God (himself) outside of the incarnation (man)?
Sorry, I should have read further in the thread.
I'm not trying to argue. But, didn't our word "person" used to mean "persona" or have the same meaning as the word "persona" and isn't that what Trinitarians mean when they use the word "person" in their creed?
Don't trinitarians (and I guess it's impossible to lump all trinitarians together like it would be impossible to lump all oneness together) but anyway, don't most trinitarians believe:
1. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the holy Ghost is Lord but there is only one Lord.
2. Jesus lives in our heart, the Holy Spirit lives in our heart, the Spirit of God lives in our heart, the Spirit of the Father lives in our heart, but only one Spirit lives in our heart.
3. Jesus is the visible manifestation of God and the only way we will see God is in the person of Jesus Christ.The original Creeds do not use the word "person." Those who formulated the early Creeds (the Nicene, Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Creeds, not the Athanasian Creed) used the Greek word "prosopon" or the Latin word "persona" to distinguish Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually. Cyril, trying to create a clear division between his doctrine and Sabellianism, insisted that the Church stop using prosopon or persona and start using hypostasis (which is the word used in Hebrews 1:3 in reference to God and is translated "person" in the KJV).
There are different versions of the trinity doctrine and I've even heard some trinitarians define "persons" as "beings" while others, in describing their doctrine, say the same thing oneness folks would say.
Felicity
03-01-2007, 08:43 AM
The original Creeds do not use the word "person." Those who formulated the early Creeds (the Nicene, Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Creeds, not the Athanasian Creed) used the Greek word "prosopon" or the Latin word "persona" to distinguish Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually. Cyril, trying to create a clear division between his doctrine and Sabellianism, insisted that the Church stop using prosopon or persona and start using hypostasis (which is the word used in Hebrews 1:3 in reference to God and is translated "person" in the KJV).
There are different versions of the trinity doctrine and I've even heard some trinitarians define "persons" as "beings" while others, in describing their doctrine, say the same thing oneness folks would say.Yep. :)
No person did not mean Persona, Rather person COMES from the word persona but theologically speaking....because we are discussing theology....the term Person has come to be used to express the individual self..the WHO. That is how the word person has been used theologically for quite a while now.
And really...the issue is really about confusion. When you talk to a Trinitarian are you going to say "Oh yeah. I believe in three persons too"? When you and I both know to him the word person means an individual self?
per·son
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/prosopopoeia)
Date: 13th century 1: human (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/human), individual (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/individual) — sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/guise)3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/personality) of Christ that unites the divine and human natures4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>5: the personality (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/personality) of a human being : self (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/self)6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
I'm usually defending what we believe against their attacks. It's called apologetics.
However my point is all Trinitarians say they believe in One God. It's part of their doctrinal position. All Trinitarians believe God is three persons, not people, persons...three individual selfs or who's..Those that don't are probably really Modalists that are confused about the doctrine of the Trinity.Correction: MOST modern Trinitarians believe God is three persons.
mizpeh
03-01-2007, 08:53 AM
[QUOTE=sola gratia;22990]Eternal distinctions …..
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. (the WORD- JESUS CHRIST- was GOD and HE was with GOD at the same time – this is an eternal distinction)
The OT personifies the word of the Lord, the name of the Lord, and wisdom. (There may be more I am not aware of.) In personifying these aspects of God, I don't believe the Bible is making them to be other than God or different hypostasis' of God but I think it is allowing us to see different aspects of God. The word of the Lord that came to the prophets did not come apart from the Spirit of God himself, for the prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Even though the Bible says "the word of the Lord came to" in 1Kings 16:1, we know it was the Spirit that spake the words or I could say the words belong to the Spirit and can be distinct from the Spirit but not apart from the Spirit as in another person.
2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
I hope to be back to address these other scriptures in which you wish to show an eternal distinctness. I don't think you are trying to show another God or another person of God but I'd like to know more of what you think this distinctness means since you are Oneness.
Eternal distinctions …..
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. (the WORD- JESUS CHRIST- was GOD and HE was with GOD at the same time – this is an eternal distinction)
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.(God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son)
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (JESUS wishes to return to the former glory he had with HIS Father- eternal distinction)
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son – HE was then made or a woman)
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (yes – I know not in the original text right! Well quite quoting Mark 16:16 to back up baptismal regeneration and then the trinnies will budge on this one! ROFL!)
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.(we still have this high priest – present tense)I wasn't quite prepared to go as far as saying "eternal distinctions." Jesus' status as the Son of God necessarily had a beginning because in His sonship Jesus is begotten. The phrase used in the Roman Catholic/Protestant CORRUPTION of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, "eternally begotten," is an oxymoron.
Hello SG,
What do you mean when you say the Son prayed eternally? Are you saying there is an eternal aspect of God that prayed to God (himself) outside of the incarnation (man)?
Sorry, I should have read further in the thread.
Even I had a problem with that one - and I would consider myself a Trinitarian.
[quote]
The OT personifies the word of the Lord, the name of the Lord, and wisdom. (There may be more I am not aware of.) In personifying these aspects of God, I don't believe the Bible is making them to be other than God or different hypostasis' of God but I think it is allowing us to see different aspects of God. The word of the Lord that came to the prophets did not come apart from the Spirit of God himself, for the prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Even though the Bible says "the word of the Lord came to" in 1Kings 16:1, we know it was the Spirit that spake the words or I could say the words belong to the Spirit and can be distinct from the Spirit but not apart from the Spirit as in another person.
2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
I hope to be back to address these other scriptures in which you wish to show an eternal distinctness. I don't think you are trying to show another God or another person of God but I'd like to know more of what you think this distinctness means since you are Oneness.
I think your use of hypostasis (or its plural, hypostases) here is inaccurate since that Greek word suggests individual beings or (dare I say it) "persons."
Digging4Truth
03-01-2007, 09:04 AM
Correction: MOST modern Trinitarians believe God is three persons.
While I do agree with this basic statement I would like to say this...
My experience has been that very few trinitarians believe that, when they approach the throne, they are going to see 3 beings.
They do use the term persons and if you asked them if they believed God is 3 persons they would say yes.
But if you asked them how many would see there if they looked at the throne they would say one.
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 09:05 AM
What we fail to understand about the Trinitarian creeds is they are not absolutes like the oneness creeds are– they are concepts of GOD – to state Trinitarians believe in three separate and distinct persons is true in “concept” – they also believe GOD is one so there is a conflict there unless you understand the concept – The concept is for each manifestation, aspect, person – whatever!!! To be identified as GOD, protecting in a creedal level the divinity and deity of each representation of GOD.
In the time of the Tertullian and others you had Sabellius who equated the Spirit and Son to be almost like puppets GOD wore to reveal himself to us, Arius stating JESUS was not deity - but more of a demigod – the modern day Trinitarians of that time sought to create a doctrine stating Father, Son and Holy Ghost are GOD! Distinct as they are – they all make up this being called GOD! Classic Trinitarianism would be opposed to the term “beings” –not “persons” however – because it was distinctive of who GOD is(Father Son HG) without creating a GOD comprised of beings…. We have demonized those fella’s at Nicea and that’s a shame their main purpose was to deify JESUS at a time others where not – they did not appease Constantine as some state – their modus operandie was to formally state JESUS IS GOD
I never said I was oneness – I said I don’t wear labels of either camp, and find some truth, and value in both
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 09:07 AM
I wasn't quite prepared to go as far as saying "eternal distinctions." Jesus' status as the Son of God necessarily had a beginning because in His sonship Jesus is begotten. The phrase used in the Roman Catholic/Protestant CORRUPTION of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, "eternally begotten," is an oxymoron.
eternally begotten and trinity where used LONG before Nicea Bro - hundreds of years before
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 09:14 AM
just some info for reference
The truth of the matter is the doctrine was evident biblically among the first church in a scriptural manner – by that I mean Paul, Peter, and John etc…. then to their successors and so on – in fact you’ll find incredible historical documentation supporting the doctrine of the Trinity - and or the doctrine of distinction for the weak at heart LOL!!
From the apostles to the church fathers, and to modern day – this history is very helpful in aiding us to understand the thought process alive in the early church. – and the doctrine it espoused….
When I say early church I mean times as early as 50 AD to 70 AD to 200 AD very early Christianity –
Lets start with the church fathers first – these where post apostolic leaders of the church- they are demonized by some as being pagan, and corrupt and so on, there is little documentation to show that – it is worthy however to note that if every bible in the world was destroyed totally – we could reconstruct the entire word of GOD from the letters and writings of the Church Fathers – that’s how much they used and respected the WORD
I know some dislike these guys - I am not validating them as much as I am showing that we cannot blame the catholics of the Nicea men for the trinity
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Next is some early instruction on baptism
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, ……. (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). A major apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. Very respected and influential
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
Origen
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Of great interest is this – because anti-trinitarians attest that the doctrine of the trinity was the molding of Emperor Constantine’s pagan theologies, with a politically motivated Catholicism, and that is a lie – Constantines Nicean Counsel was in 325 AD - these quotes date some 200 plus years before this counsel.
Anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325. However history vehemently disagrees.
Anti – Trinitarians assess that the doctrine developed in the bowels of paganism – history shows that the doctrine was common place discussion and teaching in the church by church leaders, early AD 70, early AD 100 through to the 200’s and beyond!
This history is not supposition and propaganda but credible, scholarly accepted documentation, of early church view.
Sherri
03-01-2007, 09:15 AM
I don't think any of us will totally understand God this side of eternity. I have my ideas, but I can't really explain some scriptures--like the one that says that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, making intercession between man and God. Those kinds of things are just overwhelming to my little finite brain and so I just love God and have to trust Him. I've heard those things explained to me many times, but it still doesn't completely make sense when you read scripture.
I believe that God is one, but He can manifest Himself however He wants. There is a Creator side to Him, a fleshly body that housed His spirit, and then His Spirit that infills us. I can't totally separate it, but I can't totally put it together either. He's just God and He's bigger than our thinking.
eternally begotten and trinity where used LONG before Nicea Bro - hundreds of years beforeTertullian used the word "trinitas," not the English word "trinity" (English did not exist as a language yet). As for whether there was a trinity doctrine before the Nicene Creed, that is subject to debate. Even so, one must ask "Which version of the trinity doctrine"? Just because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned doesn't mean those who mentioned them believed they were (to quote some modern statements of faith) "three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons." The phrase "eternally begotten" was not in the original Nicene Creed. The original phrase was a Greek phrase that translates into the English "begotten before all worlds" (as used in the Eastern Orthodox version of the Creed). The phrase "eternally begotten" is an oxymoron because the word "begotten" necessitates having a beginning and the word "eternally" necessitates that the thing has not only been occurring throughout all of eternity "past" but that it will continue to occur throughout all of eternity "future." Thus, the phrase "eternally begotten" means that Jesus has always been in the process of being begotten and will always be in the process of being begotten.
Then, of course, there's the whole thing about an economic trinity and an immanent trinity.
For further reading: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Examination-Persons-Trinity-Doctrine/dp/1424143713/sr=8-1/qid=1172766054/ref=sr_1_1/103-4868901-2082262?ie=UTF8&s=books
While I do agree with this basic statement I would like to say this...
My experience has been that very few trinitarians believe that, when they approach the throne, they are going to see 3 beings.
They do use the term persons and if you asked them if they believed God is 3 persons they would say yes.
But if you asked them how many would see there if they looked at the throne they would say one.One would hope they would say "one." I've actually heard some suggest they would see three thrones and I've actually heard some define "persons" as "beings." I've even heard one suggest that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like members of a team or committee called "God." Then, of course, there's the whole thing about how the three persons supposedly interact with and relate to (have a relationship with) each other.
Truly Blessed
03-01-2007, 09:39 AM
No man has seen God. Jesus is the express image of God the Father. When you see Jesus, you have seen the Father.You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
Thankfully, TB, what 'can' be seen ... was enough to rescue us!!!!
You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
The scripture says what it says: No MAN has seen God at any time. The angels are not men. Further, according to Genesis God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul. It doesn't say Adam was body, soul and spirit, it says that the combination of body and spirit produced a living soul. Thus, we don't have souls, we are souls.
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:15 PM
The aspect of GOD know as SON of God is recognized for HIS individuality, yes, HIS distinctive actions and existence, but not his separate ego, or being – in that manner HE is fully GOD, and cannot be separated in the manner where he is so individualized as is assumed by the post – I’d like to include a few thoughts from the Anthanasian Creed – he sort of was the one who first incorporated the word “person” –
Trinitarians by and large today DO indeed recognize the Son as a distinct ego or SELF...I did not say being. Nor did I say separate. They believe Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct SELFS or Individuals or WHOS. Some DO however say three separate individuals and even others say distinct or separate beings, but by and large most of they just see three distinct selfs or egos.
I would agree with this – but you have to qualify this more – modalists don’t mean when GOD morphed into the Son the throne was vacant – or the Father ceased to exist – so the statement is too narrow to be taken at face value
I didn't say "Morphed into the Son" nor did I say "throne was vacant".....nor that the Father ceased to exist. So I have no clue what you are trying to do here. You are putting words in my mouth.
It does mean individual self on some levels but is also akin to persona of which it did originate – Don’t yoy believe the Son had some individualization to him?
The issue is what Trinitarians believe. Please stop trying to redefine what I said into something other than what I meant. Trinitarians use the term Person to mean a hypostasis. They have three. Modalists had one that was three different modes. Oneness has one Hypostasis that is both Father and Son. I do not believe the Father and Son are two different persons. I do believe they are two different forms of being of the same person. I believe they are distinct due to the human nature/will/psyche of the Son. But to say they are different persons is either Unitarian or Binitarian or Trinitarian.
He prayed in that manner – not just incarnationally but eternally as well – to blur the lines of distinction on an eternal level is not biblical – does it make you a trinitarian?
Does it make WHO a Trinitarian? To blur what lines on an eternal level? I deny He prayed "eternally" as well. That WOULD be something more akin to Trinitarianism or Arianism. The Son's prayers did not begin until the incarnation and were the result of having a Human nature
To some maybe – but we cannot ignore certain text just to preserve our title – you can be oneness and still acknowledge eternal distinctions
No, you can't. Oneness definitionally is One Eternal Being/Person who became the Son AT the incarnation when he was hypostatically united with a Human nature. You are saying there was an Eternally existing Son. That is Neither modalism nor Unitarianism but is certainly Trinitarian, Binitarian and Arian (to some degree)
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:18 PM
Correction: MOST modern Trinitarians believe God is three persons.
Well like I said, those that don't are really more like modalists in my view. Im talking about the current definition of Trinitarianism.
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:19 PM
While I do agree with this basic statement I would like to say this...
My experience has been that very few trinitarians believe that, when they approach the throne, they are going to see 3 beings.
They do use the term persons and if you asked them if they believed God is 3 persons they would say yes.
But if you asked them how many would see there if they looked at the throne they would say one.
Folks, this is because Trinitarians do not equate the term person with beings. They believe in 1 Divine being/essence that all three persons share. And those persons are said to interdwell one another
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:22 PM
eternally begotten and trinity where used LONG before Nicea Bro - hundreds of years before
lol...hundreds of years. Just how many hundreds of years? Can you give the date and the person?
Let's remember the original Nicean council was 320 AD...was it 120 AD? that would be about 200 years...or did you mean three hundred years back to 20 AD?
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:23 PM
just some info for reference
The truth of the matter is the doctrine was evident biblically among the first church in a scriptural manner – by that I mean Paul, Peter, and John etc…. then to their successors and so on – in fact you’ll find incredible historical documentation supporting the doctrine of the Trinity - and or the doctrine of distinction for the weak at heart LOL!!
Oneness Pentecostals believe in a distinction. Ok? They deny that distinction is one of hypostasis or individual whos
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 12:24 PM
Tertullian used the word "trinitas," not the English word "trinity" (English did not exist as a language yet). As for whether there was a trinity doctrine before the Nicene Creed, that is subject to debate. Even so, one must ask "Which version of the trinity doctrine"? Just because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned doesn't mean those who mentioned them believed they were (to quote some modern statements of faith) "three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons." The phrase "eternally begotten" was not in the original Nicene Creed. The original phrase was a Greek phrase that translates into the English "begotten before all worlds" (as used in the Eastern Orthodox version of the Creed). The phrase "eternally begotten" is an oxymoron because the word "begotten" necessitates having a beginning and the word "eternally" necessitates that the thing has not only been occurring throughout all of eternity "past" but that it will continue to occur throughout all of eternity "future." Thus, the phrase "eternally begotten" means that Jesus has always been in the process of being begotten and will always be in the process of being begotten.
Then, of course, there's the whole thing about an economic trinity and an immanent trinity.
For further reading: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Examination-Persons-Trinity-Doctrine/dp/1424143713/sr=8-1/qid=1172766054/ref=sr_1_1/103-4868901-2082262?ie=UTF8&s=books
Sameless plug :heeheehee
Anyways...how about Justins? He is claimed as a Trinitarian father....yet he had more than one Lord and more than one God and that second God, Jesus, was lessor to some degree...sounds Arianistic
Mr. Steinway
03-01-2007, 12:41 PM
I haven't read this thread, but after I read the title I couldn't help but write this:
I am so Oneness that I..............
only use one club when I golf!
I haven't read this thread, but after I read the title I couldn't help but write this:
I am so Oneness that I..............
only use one club when I golf!
PianoMan you might be fairly Oneness but you'll never be as Oneness as I am.
Mr. Steinway
03-01-2007, 12:57 PM
PianoMan you might be fairly Oneness but you'll never be as Oneness as I am.
You just THINK you're oneness! I have a one track mind! ha!
sola gratia
03-01-2007, 12:58 PM
lol...hundreds of years. Just how many hundreds of years? Can you give the date and the person?
Let's remember the original Nicean council was 320 AD...was it 120 AD? that would be about 200 years...or did you mean three hundred years back to 20 AD?
I alreadly listed the dates on a post - perhaps you missed it
here is an excerpt
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Next is some early instruction on baptism
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, ……. (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). A major apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. Very respected and influential
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
Origen
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Of great interest is this – because anti-trinitarians attest that the doctrine of the trinity was the molding of Emperor Constantine’s pagan theologies, with a politically motivated Catholicism, and that is a lie – Constantines Nicean Counsel was in 325 AD - these quotes date some 200 plus years before this counsel.
Anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325. However history vehemently disagrees.
Anti – Trinitarians assess that the doctrine developed in the bowels of paganism – history shows that the doctrine was common place discussion and teaching in the church by church leaders, early AD 70, early AD 100 through to the 200’s and beyond!
This history is not supposition and propaganda but credible, scholarly accepted documentation, of early church view.
Hey Prax .. watcha think about my buddy SG??? ... he's relentless.
The Kid
03-01-2007, 01:13 PM
I can hear the pitter patter of Brother Epley's feet stomping over to this thread... :D
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 01:17 PM
I alreadly listed the dates on a post - perhaps you missed it
here is an excerpt
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Where is the reference to the Trinity and the Eternal Son? Also is this known to be genuine or is it spurious? Many such letters like that are spurious or contain interpolations
Next is some early instruction on baptism
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Again, where is the word Trinity and where is the Eternal Son? That is what you were saying earlier. Also Justin Martyr at best was an Arian and at worst a Polytheist...I can provide some quotes if you like
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, ……. (Against Heresies X.l)
Another one of those letters Im not sure is supposed to be genuine or spurious however it does not say "Trinity" nor does it teach an Eternal Son
Tertullian (160-215). A major apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. Very respected and influential
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Right, now this isn't exaclty "hundreds of years" though. That was my question. You said hudreds of years
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
Again, I don't see "Trinity" nor "Eternal Son"
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
Origen
OK, there's a guy who says "Trinity" and has an Eternal Son...was this hundreds of years before Nicea?
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Of great interest is this – because anti-trinitarians attest that the doctrine of the trinity was the molding of Emperor Constantine’s pagan theologies, with a politically motivated Catholicism, and that is a lie – Constantines Nicean Counsel was in 325 AD - these quotes date some 200 plus years before this counsel.
Anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325. However history vehemently disagrees.
Anti – Trinitarians assess that the doctrine developed in the bowels of paganism – history shows that the doctrine was common place discussion and teaching in the church by church leaders, early AD 70, early AD 100 through to the 200’s and beyond!
This history is not supposition and propaganda but credible, scholarly accepted documentation, of early church view.
The quotes you have from 200+ years before hand don't say "Trinity" nor "Eternal Son" nor do they really even teach a Trinity.
And at best some of them may be genuine, but as I said even if they are they don't say Trinity nor Eternal Son. That stuff came a while later and a lot closer to Nicea. It was a doctrine in development. In some of the others you have question marks for the dates, which indicates the dates are speculative and not known. Often the reason for that is that it is not even known for sure if the article itself is genuine or spurious
I'd have to take more time later to check them out and see
I can hear the pitter patter of Brother Epley's feet stomping over to this thread... :D
I am more Oneness than Epley will ever be!!!! ... with one brain tied behind my back!!!!!!!!!
Carpenter tells it like it is ....
I just think it is pretty audacious for any human, fallible, mortal to think they can package the manifestation and abstract of Almighty God, definitively and comprehensively enough to toss people out into utter darkness.
I know Jesus and HIM crucified and that HE rose again and that is all I know. That is why Jesus came to earth, so we could have a representation of Almighty God that we can identify with...right? I don't even pretend that I have a portal into the abstract...I am too smart to be that dumb. :D
I alreadly listed the dates on a post - perhaps you missed it
here is an excerpt
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Next is some early instruction on baptism
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, ……. (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). A major apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. Very respected and influential
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
Origen
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Of great interest is this – because anti-trinitarians attest that the doctrine of the trinity was the molding of Emperor Constantine’s pagan theologies, with a politically motivated Catholicism, and that is a lie – Constantines Nicean Counsel was in 325 AD - these quotes date some 200 plus years before this counsel.
Anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325. However history vehemently disagrees.
Anti – Trinitarians assess that the doctrine developed in the bowels of paganism – history shows that the doctrine was common place discussion and teaching in the church by church leaders, early AD 70, early AD 100 through to the 200’s and beyond!
This history is not supposition and propaganda but credible, scholarly accepted documentation, of early church view.First of all, these are translations into English from other languages (Greek and/or Latin). Second, the mere mention of Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not prove that the three are (to quote various modern statements of faith) "co-equal, co-eternal divine persons." Third, Justin's theology was very close to Arianism.
You make the same error that most modern Trinitarians make: you presume that just because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned individually that they must necessarily be references to co-equal, co-eternal divine persons. You are presenting a logical fallacy*.
*The term fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.
Sameless plug :heeheehee
Anyways...how about Justins? He is claimed as a Trinitarian father....yet he had more than one Lord and more than one God and that second God, Jesus, was lessor to some degree...sounds Arianistic
You mean shameless plug! Yes, it most certainly was. :)
As I was doing the research for my book, I looked at some of Justin's writings. I haven't decided whether his theology was more in line with what would later become Arianism or whether it was along the lines of subordinationism, though it does seem more Arian than anything else.
Prax, Chan, SG ... Dan is more Oneness than all of y'all.
Prax, Chan, SG ... Dan is more Oneness than all of y'all.Well, since I'm not oneness, your claim isn't saying very much.
Well, since I'm not oneness, your claim isn't saying very much.
Told you so.
Praxeas
03-01-2007, 02:41 PM
You mean shameless plug! Yes, it most certainly was. :)
As I was doing the research for my book, I looked at some of Justin's writings. I haven't decided whether his theology was more in line with what would later become Arianism or whether it was along the lines of subordinationism, though it does seem more Arian than anything else.
lol....hmmmm maybe I meant sameless...:dunno
Nice catch....we need Thad back...I feel like I am having to make up for his spelling errors
lol....hmmmm maybe I meant sameless...:dunno
Nice catch....we need Thad back...I feel like I am having to make up for his spelling errorsWell, since I don't find "sameless" in the dictionary, I have to consider it an error. Then again, would there be some reason for you to say the plug lacked a sense of being the same? :)
Truly Blessed
03-01-2007, 04:04 PM
The scripture says what it says: No MAN has seen God at any time. The angels are not men. Further, according to Genesis God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul. It doesn't say Adam was body, soul and spirit, it says that the combination of body and spirit produced a living soul. Thus, we don't have souls, we are souls.I'm not sure what your point is here, but Paul certainly taught we are spirit, soul, and body.
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1Thess.5:23)
I find it interesting that when John escaped physical limitations as a result of being "in the Spirit" on the Isle of Patmos, he not only had a revelation of Jesus Christ, but saw God seated upon the throne and Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of He who sat upon the throne.
This is what I believe will happen when we finally escape the veil of our flesh. We will see God in a way that we have never been able to see Him because we have become like Him.
mizpeh
03-01-2007, 06:21 PM
I think your use of hypostasis (or its plural, hypostases) here is inaccurate since that Greek word suggests individual beings or (dare I say it) "persons."
I thought most Trinitarians believe in 3 hypostasis' in one homoousious.
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 06:39 PM
One of the most striking and telling aspects of early church history is found in the actions taken by trinitarian "Christians" towards oneness believers.
Not one ounce of true Christianity in it. Very telling.
One of the most striking and telling aspects of early church history is found in the actions taken by trinitarian "Christians" towards oneness believers.
Not one ounce of true Christianity in it. Very telling.
SO ... We're the victims????
mizpeh
03-01-2007, 06:52 PM
You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
I don't believe the angels see God in heaven. I think they see God when they see the Son of God. 1 Tim 3:16 My understanding of God is that He is an invisible Spirit that fills all heaven and earth, the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. In Him we live and move and have our being. He is the same everywhere at the same time. Because of this, God does not have eyes, a right hand, feet, a face, etc, these human body parts attributed to God are for us to understand Him and are called anthropomorphisms. The right hand of God is figurative for a place of power and authority.
I'm not sure what you mean by our spirit existence. When released from this mortal human body, we'll await our immortal human body and then we'll be like Jesus.
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 06:56 PM
SO ... We're the victims????
It's an interesting study.
Who was/is the victim is purely dependant on one's point of view.
Ultimately, the wolves will be the "victim" of the Master Shepherd's wrath.
The sheep slain have become more powerful than the wolves could possibly imagine.
It's an interesting study.
Who was/is the victim is purely dependant on one's point of view.
Ultimately, the wolves will be the "victim" of the Master Shepherd's wrath.
The sheep slain have become more powerful than the wolves could possibly imagine.
Theo ... you are artfully dodging the question ... you obviously have a view on who the victims are ...
but are there not victims on both sides since the "new issue"?
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 07:16 PM
Theo ... you are artfully dodging the question ... you obviously have a view on who the victims are ...
but are there not victims on both sides since the "new issue"?
I answered the question.
So many trins want to refer to early church history when they run out of Bible to try and support Polytheism. In doing so, they reveal the true spirit that their early father's were of. They were not of God, that much is painfully clear, no pun intended.
Again, who was and now is the victim is per one's point of view.
You'll have to expound on your "new" question to get an answer.
I answered the question.
So many trins want to refer to early church history when they run out of Bible to try and support Polytheism. In doing so, they reveal the true spirit that their early father's were of. They were not of God, that much is painfully clear, no pun intended.
Again, who was and now is the victim is per one's point of view.
You'll have to expound on your "new" question to get an answer.
Are there victims on both sides of this debate since the last century, Theo?
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 07:44 PM
Are there victims on both sides of this debate since the last century, Theo?
Well, that is some clarification, though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by victim.
In the last century, the only "victims" that I see, if I get your meaning, are those that have fallen prey to falsity.
Well, that is some clarification, though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by victim.
In the last century, the only "victims" that I see, if I get your meaning, are those that have fallen prey to falsity.
You mean both sides haven't verbally and emotionally slayed one another ...
Take this for what it's worth. Here is a math equation for Father-Son-Hoy Ghost.
The value of the letters added up in the names.
The equation would be 58(Father) 48(son) 60(Holy) 69(Ghost)
The equation could be 58-48+60-69 = 1
By collapsing the Son and Ghost into the Holy Father your equation equals 1.
Not sure how my mind works.
I did not read this in a book.
Take this for what it's worth. Here is a math equation for Father-Son-Hoy Ghost.
The value of the letters added up in the names.
The equation would be 58(Father) 48(son) 60(Holy) 69(Ghost)
The equation could be 58-48+60-69 = 1
By collapsing the Son and Ghost into the Holy Father your equation equals 1.
Not sure how my mind works.
I did not read this in a book.
You now hold the title .... NECK IS MORE ONENESS THAN I AM!!!
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 08:12 PM
You mean both sides haven't verbally and emotionally slayed one another ...
More clarification, thank you.
In this case, I've seen plenty of it, in various degrees, especially on forums. There can be spiritual repercussion from this, IMHO.
On a personal note, I have many trinitarian friends, some can discuss it and some can't. I simply teach and love them either way.
Some have resorted to ugliness both to my face and behind my back, simply for what I have taught. Being forewarned of this by Jesus, I take it in stride and count it all joy.
I hate trinitarianism, love trinitarians. I believe the key is to understand trinitarianism and trinitarians.
More clarification, thank you.
In this case, I've seen plenty of it, in various degrees, especially on forums. There can be spiritual repercussion from this, IMHO.
On a personal note, I have many trinitarian friends, some can discuss it and some can't. I simply teach and love them either way.
Some have resorted to ugliness both to my face and behind my back, simply for what I have taught. Being forewarned of this by Jesus, I take it in stride and count it all joy.
I hate trinitarianism, love trinitarians. I believe the key is to understand trinitarianism and trinitarians.
Kinda like love the sinner and hate the sin????
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 08:39 PM
Kinda like love the sinner and hate the sin????
Sort of, but sometimes it's more about loving your enemies even though they think that they do God service and acknowledging sincere pursuits, where they can be found.
Honestly, it's not a primary issue with me with regards to addressing other Christians. I rather teach the aspects of the new covenant first, of course, this brings the controversy of baptismal formula to light almost straight away with most.
That is one of the things that interests me the most, you cannot so much as teach Baptism to most trinitarians without their resolve becoming manifest to painstakingly refuse to be Baptized in the glorious Name of Jesus Christ.
What can it hurt? Obviously everything to most doctrinal paradigms.
Sort of, but sometimes it's more about loving your enemies even though they think that they do God service and acknowledging sincere pursuits, where they can be found.
Honestly, it's not a primary issue with me with regards to addressing other Christians. I rather teach the aspects of the new covenant first, of course, this brings the controversy of baptismal formula to light almost straight away with most.
That is one of the things that interests me the most, you cannot so much as teach Baptism to most trinitarians without their resolve becoming manifest to painstakingly refuse to be Baptized in the glorious Name of Jesus Christ.
What can it hurt? Obviously everything to most doctrinal paradigms.
Enemies????
Theophilus
03-01-2007, 08:53 PM
Enemies????
Yes. Enemies. In variant degrees of course, sometimes simply in the sense of opposition, other times in a much more extreme sense, such as hatred, unfortunately.
Jesus called this spade a spade, thrice in His Word.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Lu 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Lu 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Steve Epley
03-01-2007, 08:54 PM
TB looked at God and sees two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God!:tease
Me thinks some of y'all are closet Trinitarians no wonder you think they are saved because in reality that is what y'all are.
:drawguns :drawguns :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse
Yes. Enemies. In variant degrees of course, sometimes simply in the sense of opposition, other times in a much more extreme sense, such as hatred, unfortunately.
Jesus called this spade a spade, thrice in His Word.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Lu 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Lu 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
oh boy ....
Yes. Enemies. In variant degrees of course, sometimes simply in the sense of opposition, other times in a much more extreme sense, such as hatred, unfortunately.
Jesus called this spade a spade, thrice in His Word.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Lu 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Lu 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
My Grandfather was a WW1 and WW2 vet. He said if love your enemies do with a Gun in your hand. Love and trust are 2 different things.
To love your enemies it to leave them alone...
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.