The necessity of Matt 28:19 & 1 John 5:7

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

How can you say Jesus is the Father, Son, and HolyGhost and say that the Son is not God himself? Don't you believe Jesus is God?

I have not advocated trinity neither did I say there's a "God the Son." I said Jesus Christ himself put the Father, Son, and HolyGhost on the same level in Matt 28:19. Therefore, the Father, Son, and HolyGhost refer to the same God.

The Son is God himself in human form. The Son is NOT just a flesh container.

If the Son ain't God himself, why then did Jesus mention the Son in Matt 28:19?

I absolutely do believe Jesus is God! But, i believe he came manifested in the flesh, and that flesh happens to be the Son.

The Son is the visible image of the invisible God. It is how God manifested Himself to be able to relate to and redeem mankind. Jesus was/is God's revelation of Himself to us.

God is a Spirit, and an eternal one at that. The Son is a man, and a begotten one at that.

I'll check this out more today and post later when i have more time. (when i'm not supposed to be working) lol

[egalejiya]

Matt. 28;19 ,Mark 16 ;16, john 3;5, acts 22;16. There is no bible salvation without it.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by egalejiya

Matt. 28;19 ,Mark 16 ;16, john 3;5, acts 22;16. There is no bible salvation without it.

Absolutely. Where did that come from?

[NorCal]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

I absolutely do believe Jesus is God! But, i believe he came manifested in the flesh, and that flesh happens to be the Son.

The Son is the visible image of the invisible God. It is how God manifested Himself to be able to relate to and redeem mankind. Jesus was/is God's revelation of Himself to us.

God is a Spirit, and an eternal one at that. The Son is a man, and a begotten one at that.

I'll check this out more today and post later when i have more time. (when i'm not supposed to be working) lol

Yes,
Father is the Transcended Being
Son is Transcended Being made Flesh (Incarnation)
Holy Ghost is Transcended Being dwelling (working) in/with us

So when speaking of Specific things, the proper term would be used.
Such as: God being Almighty. You would say that is the Father. When you say God died for our sins, you would say Son. And when you say God Spoke to me (or moved upon me), that would be the Holy Ghost.

I do believe aspects of each have been shown throughout the Old Testament. A lot of people don't understand that when the Prophets did miracles, were moved, or Prophesied, it was the Holy Ghost working through them.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Nobody said "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost"

The Son, in Oneness, is not a skin suit, the Son is not an impersonal it, just skin that God was inside of. The Son was a person who spoke and did things.

Divine flesh is NOT the doctrine that the Son is God. The doctrine of Divine flesh teaches His humanity was not inherited through Mary but was of a heavenly origin.

The Son IS Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Son. The Dual nature doctrine is that Jesus (the Son) is both God and man.

From David Bernard, the Oneness of the Godhead, chapter 5 "The Son of God"

He has two natures.
"From the Bible we see that Jesus Christ had two distinct natures in a way that no other human being has ever had"

"Son of God may refer solely to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh - that is, deity in the human nature."

"Man could not see the invisible God, so God made an exact likeness of Himself in flesh, impressed His very nature in flesh, came Himself in flesh, so that man could see and know Him."

"As stated above, "Son" does not always refer to the humanity alone but to the deity and humanity together as they exist in the one person of Christ"

"What is the significance of the title "Son of God"? It emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus"

"When Peter confessed that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God," he recognized the Messianic role and deity of Jesus (Matthew 16:16). The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He called Himself the Son of God and when He called God His Father, for they tried to kill Him for claiming to be God (John 5:18; 10:33). In short, the title "Son of God" recognizes the humanity while calling attention to the deity of Jesus. It means God has manifested Himself in flesh."

"These verses describe the eternal Spirit that was in the Son - the deity that was later incarnated as the Son - as the Creator."

Bump for kleanex

[Aquila]

What is a "person"? One's person is one's distinct "self", that is a distinct self aware consciousness. You are a distinct person from me because you have a distinct "self" or "self aware consciousness". Also, you are a separate "being" because you are a separate living thing in relation to me. So a "person" is a "self", one who can say "I" in relation to others.

Jesus prays to the Father as though He's another person. Jesus said, "I AND my father ARE one." The "self" (person) that prayed to the Father identifies Himself as the I AM and having been before Abraham. The same "self" or "person" that prayed to the Father also said that He possessed glory with His Father before the world was. John tells us that prior to incarnation the Son was the Word. It was the Word that was made flesh, not the Father, though John also tells us that the Word that was "with God" was also "God". This is a distinction with unity of being.

I propose that the very person of Christ is indeed a distinct divine persona that subsisted within the Father from eternity. Thus He is both distinct from God the Father (a biblical term) and at the same time existing in unity of being, from all eternity, with God the Father.

Imagine "Oneness" but from an eternal perspective that sees the person of Christ as eternal, not just a man from Bethlehem. And even IF Jesus was just a man, complete humanity (human body, soul, and spirit), He'd still be a distinct person because in relation to the Father Jesus can say, "I" with distinction. So such a theory would still have two "persons", only it would express the notion that we'd have one divine person who is in unity of being with a human person.

As long as Jesus says "I" in relation to Himself and "You", "Thou", or "Thee" in relation to the Father, He is a distinct "person". For example,

Jesus says...

"I and my father are one." ("I and")

If Jesus was the same "person" Jesus would say...

"I, the father, am one."

So rather you believe that Jesus is a distinct divine person who is one in being with the Father from eternity or that Jesus is merely a human being that was the complete humanity in which God was manifest, you have two distinct "persons". No way around it.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What is a "person"? ...

Here is a trinitarian's explanation of a "person." This is taken from Bro. Dan Segrave's blog at http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html


Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

Here is a trinitarian's explanation of a "person." This is taken from Bro. Dan Segrave's blog at http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html


Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

Great points. That's why I always try to use the term persona along with person.

The main difference between Modalism and Trinitarianism is that Modalism believes that God is one person who manifests in three personas at various points in time. In Trinitarianism the three personas of God are eternal personas that eternally co-exist within in His nature.