Godhead Question - Page 12

Praxeas · #**111** 07-15-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I was having a discussion. I made a comment about your reply that I thought showed an attitude... it was quite brief. The majority of my response was to the subject at hand.
.

Your post was about me personally in a negative light. Before that post, did I do that to you?

TheLegalist · #**112** 07-15-2010, 03:21 PM

BACK to the.point.... well gotta go, spent the last 30 watching a bunch of nothing.

Praxeas · #**113** 07-15-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I love the attitude. Are you suggesting I'm not reading? Maybe I'm just not as smart as you, Prax.

While I admit that there are SOME who have quite an insight into the theology of the godhead, I find more forcefully assuming that role. I'm not that guy. I haven't suggested as such. On this topic, I'm open to learn. But your response in bold is so typical. Someday I'll have the same Spirit you have so I can see all things like you do.

You did say he was a mode. You said the Father, Son, Spirit are modes. But if you are taking that back, then okay. As far as the Text, I'm asking where does the concept of modalism come from? Isn't it people attempting to explain this triune nature just like those who formed an old creed years prior?

Jesus is a person that has human nature. Is Jesus God? Did you forget that part about who He is as well?

Id say 50% of this post, the first one, was your focusing on me in a pejorative manner

TheLegalist · #**114** 07-15-2010, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

There is One God. This one God reveals Himself as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faithwith the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.

oh and by the way... the Deity statement needs to be fixed as that is not defining in a Oneness sense.

Maximilian · #**115** 07-15-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Look..I didn't say anything about you. I didn't say YOU have a problem or YOU have an attitude or anything else personal until after you said I have an attitude.

I did not, I was simply responding to the thoughts posted. I thought some of what I posted already spoke to what you said.

I even went and quoted myself.

I pointed out that some of the things that were said we did not or would not say...

You make it personal about me, just like before.

I asked you not to do that so we can just have a discussion. You complain that you don't want to have a discussion and not be able to make personal comments, negative...just like before. I knew it was you.

That's what happened, that is what I have asked for before and now, to just dialog without the personal finger pointing and negative commentary about other persons.

Your response is "WTH"

Prax, here's what you're referring to:

Prax: I think what has been posted so far is enough to explain if you read it
Me: I love the attitude. Are you suggesting I'm not reading? Maybe I'm just not as smart as you, Prax.

You call that "picking on you." Regardless of your post-humous explanation, it sounded a little condescending to me. It certainly didn't encourage further questions. My response was above, and then I interacted with the rest of your post.

I can't always offer you what you want, Prax. We are two people. It can be quite frustrating for you to, in almost every post, say "i didn't say that." It starts to make the dialogue combative. Insteading just explaining what you intended or how I may be misunderstanding what you're saying... that's where we keep going wrong. It sounds quite defensive IMO.

Either way, there is NO justification for you to pull the Admin card and out my ID publicly. Unacceptable dude.

Maximilian · #**116** 07-15-2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your response is "WTH"

My response was "WTH" to this post:

Quote:

I asked you not to do that so we can just have a discussion. You complain that you don't want to have a discussion and not be able to make personal comments,

Still don't quite understand what you're saying.

mfblume · #**117** 07-15-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherri

Ok, I lean heavily toward Oneness, even though I hate using that title, because it's divisive. But tonight Eddie was using a scripture during his message that really is hard to understand from that viewpoint. When the Word talks about Jesus being the mediator between us and God, how does that work into a Oneness view? Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my brain around this.

I'm going to bed, so I will read your responses in the morning. G'night!

It says there is one mediator between GOD (THEOS) and MAN (ANTHROPOS) the mediator is THE MAN (ANTHROPOS) CHRIST JESUS. It emphasizes the humanity as distinct from the Deity. This is where Phil. 2 comes into play where Jesus is equal to God (THEOS) and humbled Himself, which is limited Himself, so as to be a human (ANTHROPOS)as well.

Maximilian · #**118** 07-15-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your post was about me personally in a negative light. Before that post, did I do that to you?

Yes. I perceived your comment to be quite negative and taking away from the discussion. You can say you meant it another way, but that's how I took it and that's why I responded. I wanted you to know it felt like an attitude, and it felt a little condescending. I was already being vulnerable being open and honest that I have not fully landed theologically on this topic.