Is Jesus God or a god?

[Pythagoras]

Sparkey re-visited:

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?

"In what way" he asks in all earnesty? He doesn't even comprehend how his trinity is seen to be modalistic in the eyes of the eastern church!


"The filioque leads either to ditheism or to semi-Sabellianism (Sabellius, a heretic of the second century, regarded Father, Son, and Spirit not as three distinct persons, but simply as varying ‘modes’ or ‘aspects’ of the deity). If the Son as well as the Father is an arche, a principle or source of Godhead, are there then (the Orthodox asked) two independent sources, two separate principles in the Trinity? Obviously not, since this would be tantamount to belief in two Gods; and so the Reunion Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-1439) were most careful to state that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son ‘as from one principle,’ tanquam ex (or ab) uno principio. From the Orthodox point of view, however, this is equally objectionable: ditheism is avoided, but the persons of Father and Son are merged and confused. The Cappadocians regarded the ‘monarchy’ as the distinctive characteristic of the Father: He alone is a principle or arche within the Trinity. But western theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the Father to the Son as well, thus fusing the two persons into one; and what else is this but ‘Sabellius reborn, or rather some semi-Sabellian monster,’ as Saint Photius put it? (P.G. 102, 289B)."

You also claimed that the Eastern Orthodox church disagreed with the Western/Roman Churches definition, but that is not true either. There are some slight variances on how each defines the relationship between the Father/Son/HolySpirit but all orthodox Christians agree (western and eastern) on the basic definition of the trinity, that there is only one God and that he is revealed in three persons, who coexist with each other and are NOT one person playing roles, or three beings/gods.

As I mentioned in an earlier post the differences between east and west are not trivial. But Sparkey disagrees. It is air-headed comments like these that lead me to the conclusion that Sparkey doesn't know what he's talking about. Here again is some food for thought from the EO link:


"Yet there is one point in the doctrine of God the Trinity over which east and west part company — the filioque. We have already seen how decisive a part this one word played in the unhappy fragmentation of Christendom. But granted that the filioque is important historically, does it really matter from a theological point of view? Many people today — not excluding many Orthodox — find the whole dispute so technical and obscure that they are tempted to dismiss it as utterly trivial. From the viewpoint of traditional Orthodox theology there can be but one rejoinder to this: technical and obscure it undoubtedly is, like most questions of Trinitarian theology; but it is not trivial."




best wishes,

ref:

http://www.aroundomaha.com/sschool/Orthodox_Church_Worship.html

[Sparko]

Pythagoras, would you like me to get some eastern orthodox members to come on here and tell you that you are full of crap and that my beliefs are not modalistic?

You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque. In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and Son is not something I have a staked opionion on. so exactly WHAT is your reason for calling me a modalist?

HMMMMMM??????



Your strawman is smoking a great deal. Perhaps that is why you are having a hard time seeing the truth?

[Pythagoras]

Even the Gregories and Basil had their disagreements. Friendship can take many forms, so I hope we remain friends.

All the best.

Ofcourse apostoli.

God bless,

[Pythagoras]

Hi sparkey,

Pythagoras, would you like me to get some eastern orthodox members to come on here and tell you that you are full of crap and that my beliefs are not modalistic?

Bring them on. But if they are like you what's the use? Your IQ is at the same level as Paul. Look it. Photius, the patriatch of Constantinople regarded the Western trinity to be Sabelliastic. Do you really think I'm going to give more weight to your air head orthodox members than to his opinion ?

You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque.

It's filioque not filoque genius. If you're a Baptist or in any way alligned to the Western trinitarian perspective, then you hold to the filioque, if you don't then you cannot truthfully call yourself a baptist or a western trinitarian .You're speaking from both sides of your mouth again, which is your forte. If you have no comment regarding the filioque then you are neither here nor there and have an incomplete trinitarian doctrine.

In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it.

Typical.

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and Son is not something I have a staked opionion on. so exactly WHAT is your reason for calling me a modalist?

What trinitarian denomination do you belong to?

Your strawman is smoking a great deal. Perhaps that is why you are having a hard time seeing the truth?

Empty .

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Oh,...Lest I forget :

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?...

.

(a) The SBC statement and definition of the trinity has a position on the filioque clause. Tell us what it is!

(b) Do you believe in the Nicene creed? Yes or No?

(c) Do you believe in the Athanasian creed? Yes or No?

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Oh,...Lest I forget :





(a) The SBC statement and definition of the trinity has a position on the filioque clause. Tell us what it is!

(b) Do you believe in the Nicene creed? Yes or No?

(c) Do you believe in the Athanasian creed? Yes or No?

best wishes,

OK Pythagoras, just to stop this rabbit trail, I will state that I agree with the SBC statement of faith and accept the filioque. I will admit that in the past and perhaps in the present, some Eastern Orthodox might take that as being partially modalistic. But they were/are WRONG.

I categorically deny believing that God is modalistic in any way. The three persons in the trinity are distinct and exist simultaneously as three persons who are one God. At no point does the Father become the Son, or the Holy Spirit. The Father is not playing roles.

Now you KNOW my position and you know I am not modalistic. If you can't accept my word then you are nothing more than a troll who has no desire to have a decent conversation and just wants to play word games and burn straw men. If you do accept my word on what I believe then can we continue on with a debate about the trinity and Christ's diety?

The choice is yours.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,

OK Pythagoras, just to stop this rabbit trail, I will state that I agree with the SBC statement of faith and accept the filioque..

Not two posts ago you said the following:

"You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque. In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it."

You need to stop speaking from both sides of your mouth.

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparkey,





Not two posts ago you said the following:

"You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque. In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it."

You need to stop speaking from both sides of your mouth.

best wishes,

So your answer is to just keep trolling instead of having an honest discussion?

I thought so. You just want to troll. Let me try once again.

It SEEMS to me that you can't meet me head on in a discussion about the trinity so you just try to mischaracterize what I believe and attack that. Now perhaps that is not what you are doing, but it seems so to me.

That is why I am trying to get me and you to agree on a common definition of the trinity so that we can then move on to discussing it. Once we have an agreed upon definition then we have the common ground we need to actually debate the topic. For that purpose I said I agree with the SBC definition of the trinity. It explains the trinity in clear and consise language and I accept it as stated.

Do you accept it as a valid definition of the trinity for the purposes of discussion?

Let me repeat it:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

The doctrine of the Trinity denies tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is
only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes
modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one
Person who appears in different modes at different
times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously.
They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one
God.

It defines what the trinity is, who the persons are and it refutes modalism and tritheism.

If you will accept that as the definition of the trinity, then we can continue.

I agree with its statements. That is how I think of the trinity. I assume the filioque statment is the word "coequal" in your mind. I definitely think they are coequal in power and nature. So if that is the filioque then yes I agree with it. I see nothing about the holy spirit proceeding from both the father and son though.

I am really trying to be civil and have a decent discussion with you pythagoras. But you just keep being nasty and beating around the bush.

If you want to have a discussion about the trinity with trinitarians, here is your chance. If not, then don't expect anyone to take your accusations and arguments seriously in the future.

Its your choice.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,

So your answer is to just keep trolling instead of having an honest discussion?

.

Honest discussion? I wish you would grant me some honest answers. Let's try once more.

(a)Have you now "made a commitment regarding the filioque"? Yes or No?
(b)Do you "have an opinion regarding it" ?
(c) Do you now "accept it"?

Thing is, you're very slippery. If you can answer the above with definite yes or no, I will know for certainty what your position is and we can then proceed with an honest discussion.

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



Honest discussion? I wish you would grant me some honest answers. Let's try once more.

(a)Have you now "made a commitment regarding the filioque"? Yes or No?
(b)Do you "have an opinion regarding it" ?
(c) Do you now "accept it"?

Thing is, you're very slippery. If you can answer the above with definite yes or no, I will know for certainty what your position is and we can then proceed with an honest discussion.

best wishes,

a, b, c: Yes.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,

a, b, c: Yes.

Congralations, you're a brand new Western trinitarian!

News flash: Trinitarians from the Eastern Orthodox church consider your trinity to be semi-Sabellianism because of the filioque. And I tend to agree with their assesment. That's all I've been trying to tell you from day one Sparkey....I forgive your inability to comprehend my point since until a few hours ago you didn't even accept the filioque clause! It might still take time for all this to sink in.

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparkey,



Congralations, you're a brand new Western trinitarian!

News flash: Trinitarians from the Eastern Orthodox church consider your trinity to be semi-Sabellianism because of the filioque. And I tend to agree with their assesment. That's all I've been trying to tell you from day one Sparkey....I forgive your inability to comprehend my point since until a few hours ago you didn't even accept the filioque clause! It might still take time for all this to sink in.

best wishes,

1. I am in the process of discussing this with some eastern orthodox people. I will get back to you on what they say.

2. What does that have to do with arguing against the trinity doctrine being true or not? That is an in-house debate so to speak. Neither the eastern nor the western church claim the other is outside the bounds of orthodoxy in their trinity doctrine. Both sides may think the other leans a bit one way or the other but neither think they cross the line into nonorthodoxy, like you arians do. And both sides will state categorically that they are neither modalistic nor tritheistic. So you accusing me of being modalistic is nonsensical.

So, getting back to the thread topic that you so neatly sidetracked...

Topherlee claims that Jesus is "a" God and that he is not the same God as the Father. He definitely seems to believe in two Gods. That sure sounds like modalism. The JW NWT seems to back him up on that. It translates John 1:1 as "a" god.

Because the bible tells us that there is only ONE God, if Jesus is 'a' God, then he must be the same God as the Father. He is not the same person, but he is the same God.

Now that you know what my trinitarian stance is, you know that I am not espousing modalism above. When I say Jesus is the same God as the Father I am speaking as a trinitarian.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,

1. I am in the process of discussing this with some eastern orthodox people. I will get back to you on what they say.

Sure. I hope you can be objective about it.

2. What does that have to do with arguing against the trinity doctrine being true or not?

Nothing! I'm simply saying your trinity boders on modalism, and many of your fellow trinitarians agree with me.

That is an in-house debate so to speak. Neither the eastern nor the western church claim the other is outside the bounds of orthodoxy in their trinity doctrine.

Are you sure about that? Semi-Sabellianism is not outside the bounds of orthodoxy?

Both sides may think the other leans a bit one way or the other but neither think they cross the line into nonorthodoxy, like you arians do.

You had better think this over carefully.

And both sides will state categorically that they are neither modalistic nor tritheistic.

But this is irrelevant. It's what your trinitarian premises boil down to that counts, especially the ramificatinos associated with regard the filioque.

So you accusing me of being modalistic is nonsensical.

No.

So, getting back to the thread topic that you so neatly sidetracked...

Aren't you being a little ungrateful? If it hadn't been for this so-called sidetrack you would still have an incomplete trinitarian doctrine, still not have an opinion regarding the filioque clause. . You're now a proper trinitarian in the Catholic tradition because of my influence. How ironical!..

Topherlee claims that Jesus is "a" God and that he is not the same God as the Father. He definitely seems to believe in two Gods.

Well Moses was a God too as per Ex. 7:1. I suppose the Jews believe in teo Gods huh ?.

That sure sounds like modalism. The JW NWT seems to back him up on that. It translates John 1:1 as "a" god.

Not really.

Because the bible tells us that there is only ONE God, if Jesus is 'a' God, then he must be the same God as the Father. He is not the same person, but he is the same God.

Moses is called God in Ex. 7:1. Is he God? Use your common sense Sparko. Here's some food for thought: No God is God except God. Get it?

Now that you know what my trinitarian stance is, you know that I am not espousing modalism above.

I know that you just started incorporating the filioque clause into your trinitarian thinking a few hours ago, and you will find out sooner or later that this invariably leads to the Semi-Sabellian monster,as even the Eastern church frankly charges..

When I say Jesus is the same God as the Father I am speaking as a trinitarian.

But when you go on to say the Spirit is generated by the Father and the Son you blur the distinction between the two persons, leading to the semi-modalist heresy.

best wishes,.

[Yakkity Yak]

Three early Greek Church Fathers who played a very important role in discussing the Trinity during the fourth century were St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Because they lived in Cappadocia (an area of present-day Turkey), these three saints are simply called the Cappadocians. For many of us in the West, their thought is not well-known.

A key concept in their teaching about how the Trinity is both one and three is perichoresis, a term conveying dynamic and creative energy, eternal movement, mutuality and interrelatedness. The three divine persons are what they are by relation to one another. Some scholars like to use the image of dance to describe this term. In this divine dance there is an eternal movement of reciprocal giving and receiving, expressing the essence and unity of God. Moreover this interrelatedness of the triune God is not self-contained but is poured out in creation, Incarnation and final fulfillment. God is overflowing love, leading humanity and all creation into the divine dance of God’s life.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yakkity,

Three early Greek Church Fathers who played a very important role in discussing the Trinity during the fourth century were St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Because they lived in Cappadocia (an area of present-day Turkey), these three saints are simply called the Cappadocians. For many of us in the West, their thought is not well-known.

Judging by Sparko's responses, that's obvious isn't it?

A key concept in their teaching about how the Trinity is both one and three is perichoresis, a term conveying dynamic and creative energy, eternal movement, mutuality and interrelatedness. The three divine persons are what they are by relation to one another. Some scholars like to use the image of dance to describe this term. In this divine dance there is an eternal movement of reciprocal giving and receiving, expressing the essence and unity of God. Moreover this interrelatedness of the triune God is not self-contained but is poured out in creation, Incarnation and final fulfillment. God is overflowing love, leading humanity and all creation into the divine dance of God’s life.

Yep! And precisely because the persons are truly distinct and separate in the eastern conception of the triune relationship is the perichoresis possible. Otherwise it makes no sense to speak of the love between three persons, if they be not separate persons. Easterners do not shy away from words like three beings to stress the distinction between the members of the holy trinity.

best wishes,