What SPECIFIC creeds were an abomination in God's sight?

[seven7up]

What lexicon(s)?

Any lexicon. Leave out the Trinitarian commentary. Just look at the definitions and how those words are used elsewhere during that time period. Charakter is used to denote physical appearance, shape, or a carved out stamp or impression etc. Substance has to do with the characteristics, qualities, and nature of something.

No, they are not the same PERSON, but they have the same SUBSTANCE (being)

The verse does not say that they are the "same substance" (it does not say "autos"). It says that Jesus is the image/imprint/copy of the Father's substance. Those statements do not mean the same thing.

The LDS view fits far better. Jesus Christ is an exact duplicate of God the Father. While they are two different people, they have exactly the same characteristics, the same nature, etc. That is why Jesus says, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He does not say that because He an God the Father are the same person (as Modalists would interpret it), Jesus says it because if you see what kind of being Jesus is, (not just character, but everything about Jesus Christ), then you are seeing what kind of being God the Father is as well.

The Trinity never claims that Jesus is the Father, or the Holy Spirit. But all three persons are GOD. ONE God. Not three.

I know what the of the Trinity says. It attempts to make agreement with contradictory concepts. The Trinity does not say the same thing as Hebrews 1:3. A stamped out duplicate is not the same entity as the original.

Christ was begotten from God the Father. Like Father like Son. All living beings reproduce after their own kind.

We can say that God is "ONE" all day long. That isn't the issue. The question is, in what sense is Jesus Christ "one" with God the Father. Jesus Christ gave the best example in John chapter 17, but there are many others. The LDS view of "oneness" is much more consistent with the Biblical usage of "oneness".

-7up

[rogue06]

Perhaps this will help
Trinity.jpg

[foudroyant]

Any lexicon. Leave out the Trinitarian commentary.

Cite your source then that leaves out the commentary from the definition.

Truth is, you don't have any. It's simply your opinion.

[Bill the Cat]

Cite your source then that leaves out the commentary from the definition.

Truth is, you don't have any. It's simply your opinion.

He doesn't understand how something could be a physical representation of an attribute, which is what Jewish Wisdom Theology states. And once again, the book is to the HEBREWS, so they would be the perfect ones to make that claim to, as showing them why Jesus was their Messiah, priest, God, and King.

[seven7up]

What lexicon(s)?

From the NIDNTT: Christ is the charakteer tees hypostasews autou, "the very stamp of his [God's] nature" (Heb. 1:3 RSV), i.e. the One on whom God has stamped or imprinted his being. ....

The stamped imprint of the Father's being, is ... ANOTHER BEING. They are not the same being.

-7up

[seven7up]

Cite your source then that leaves out the commentary from the definition.

Truth is, you don't have any. It's simply your opinion.

If you just go online to a lexicon, you will see the way that the word was used in the original language and what it means. Like here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G5481&t=KJV

That is what I provided in my previous posts.

Obviously if you have a Trinitarian adding a commentary in a lexicon from a Trinitarian point of view (what you posted earlier) then they are going to try and twist it the interpretation that way.

-7up

[foudroyant]

The stamped imprint of the Father's being, is ... ANOTHER BEING. They are not the same being.

-7up

Another being? It doesn't read that from the NIDNTT.
Thanks for making that up though.

[foudroyant]

If you just go online to a lexicon, you will see the way that the word was used in the original language and what it means. Like here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G5481&t=KJV

That is what I provided in my previous posts.

Obviously if you have a Trinitarian adding a commentary in a lexicon from a Trinitarian point of view (what you posted earlier) then they are going to try and twist it the interpretation that way.

-7up

From the same site you told me to go to Vine is listed. This is what he wrote:
In the NT it is used metaphorically in Hbr 1:3, of the Son of God as "the very image (marg., 'the impress') of His substance." RV. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint" (Liddon).

In Post #11 you wrote, "Just because Jesus Christ is a reproduction of the Father's nature, does not mean that they are literally the same being or literally the same substance."
Thus you deny they are the same substance but then you cite a link with Vine telling us Christ is the same substance.
Vine: the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet LITERALLY EQUAL to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint" (emphasis mine).

[seven7up]

From the same site you told me to go to Vine is listed. This is what he wrote:
In the NT it is used metaphorically in Hbr 1:3, of the Son of God as "the very image (marg., 'the impress') of His substance." RV. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint" (Liddon).

In Post #11 you wrote, "Just because Jesus Christ is a reproduction of the Father's nature, does not mean that they are literally the same being or literally the same substance."
Thus you deny they are the same substance but then you cite a link with Vine telling us Christ is the same substance.
Vine: the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet LITERALLY EQUAL to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint" (emphasis mine).

It appears that you cannot tell the difference between commentary made by Trinitiarians, and the actual definitions provided by the lexicons which simply provide the meaning of the word.

-7up

[foudroyant]

You are not looking at all the evidence.
You put in a link and what you supplied refutes your own heresy.

[tabibito]

I am defining the terms properly. Hebrews 1 calls Jesus a "charakter" of the Father's "hypostasis".

"a. Concerning "exact representation" (charakter)"

So, as previously explained, this is a term defined by the imagery of a stamped out copy, a duplicate, or a reproduction of the original.

"b. Concerning "nature" (hypostasis)"

Sometimes translated as "person" or "substance". Just because Jesus Christ is a reproduction of the Father's nature, does not mean that they are literally the same being or literally the same substance.

To make this more clear, Hebrews 1 does NOT say "Jesus Christ, who is the same substance as the Father". NO! Instead it says that Jesus is a copy, duplicate, reproduction, of the Father.

That is why LDS theology fits that passage of scripture so well, because Mormons literally believe it to be true.

-7up

Hebrews 1 refers to Jesus as he was when he walked as a man. It doesn't address the matter of what Jesus is now. It is self evident then, or should be, that Jesus was at the time referred to in the text, not of the same substance as the Father.

[foudroyant]

Hebrews 1 refers the Lord Jesus as He always was and is...the same substance as the Father.

[tabibito]

Hebrews 1 refers the Lord Jesus as He always was and is...the same substance as the Father.

Would someone be able to provide a scriptural reference that shows Jesus of Nazareth (the Father's son by whom the Father spoke to "us" and purged our sins), always was flesh, and that he did not become flesh? I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to locate the reference. Or, if such a reference proves unavailable ... if that same Jesus was always the same substance as the Father, a reference that shows the Father to be flesh would suffice.