Why is the trinity important? [Archive]

yoki

October 17th 2005, 11:39 AM

How many doctrines are "explicitly" laid out in the Scriptures? The reason I ask is because the Bible isn't a systematic Theology text, though I believe it contains a system, and is consistant with that system. Can any doctrine be said to be explicitly laid out in the Scriptures?

That's a good point. But one should think that the essential and/or important doctrines are laid out quite clearly. For instance, that there is only one God is clearly laid out in scripture, time and time again, e.g., "Hear O Israel, God is One." Also, John 3:16 clearly lays out the basis of salvation, not to mention Romans 3, etc., etc.

As I see it, the essential doctrines are clearly laid out, and some not so essential doctrines are laid too, e.g., predestination. So if scripture does lay out the essential and the not-so-essential doctrines, what does this say about those doctrines which the Bible DOES NOT lay out clearly?

Except God isn't like that. Why did Jesus speak in parables? Why did He not speak plainly to all? Why did Jesus speak in parables and then say; "He who has ears to hear, let him hear"? What did Jesus mean when He said; "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children"? Again Jesus in a parable said; "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field," Paul said; "Col 2:1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

That is another good point too. However, given the context of Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of heaven, the hidden things He talks about, as you quoted, are revealed to "little children." and if you can find a little child who can understand the doctrine of the Trinity, I do wish you luck. Jesus here was talking about spiritual matters and not necessarily doctrinal matters. I see a big distinction between these two.

As for Paul and his "mysteries," well, I really don't want to go there right now except to mention the fact that if anyone was to reveal the mystery of the Holy Trinity, it should have been Paul since the Holy Spirit seemed to have been revealing so many new and wonderful things to him; but St. Paul did not give that mystery as well, even though he liberally expounded on all the others.

From the context of Scripture, I would say the reason the doctrine of the Trinity isn't explicitly laid out is because the Almighty didn't intend or desire to lay it out explicitly, which doesn't negate it's importance any more than the teachings of Jesus.

The Almighty did lay the essential doctrines through the scriptures. Of course, He could have waited for centuries later and revealed them through His church, but I doubt you are Catholic or Orthodox (given your username) and would agree with this way of thinking.

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 02:14 PM

Seer,

Good point C4. We want to know God as He really is. That false beliefs and views of God can, and often will, lead to idolatry...

Ironic you say that since the trinity does infact lead to the worship of a man(which is idolatry), the worship of a being who is fully God and fully man.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 02:24 PM

Hi Calvinist

The doctrine of the Trinity is THE doctrine which seperates Christianity from all other religions\sects based on the same text.

And Modalism is THE doctrine which separates Christianity from all other religions/sects based on the same text. So what?

Take away the doctrine of the Trinity, and you've taken away a distinctive of the Christian faith, and dismissed the nature of God.

To be sure it will take away a distinctive of your Christian faith, but certainly it will not dismiss the true nature of God.

The Trinity is not only important, it's essential to the Christian faith.

The Oneness Pentacostals would say their Modalism is not only important, it's essential to the Christian faith. So what.

So far you have only made empty claims without giving us any logical reasons to support those claims. Why should we believe you? Can you logically explain to us the hypostatic union?

best wishes,

P.S.
Arians believe both Trinitarianism and Modalism doctrines are not taught in the bible. I agree with the Jews that God is an absolute One.

themuzicman

October 17th 2005, 02:25 PM

Unfortunately, oneness Pentacostals have Christ bearing false witness against Himself.

Michael

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 02:35 PM

Hi musicman,

Unfortunately, oneness Pentacostals have Christ bearing false witness against Himself.

Michael

And the Oneness people (or Sabelliasts) charge trinitarians with worshipping three gods in the guise of one. I tend to agree with them.

However both positions are false, in my opinion.

I follow the Jews in worshipping the absolute One God.-- "one" means one, not three, three in one, two-thirds or one in three, etc.

best wishes,

seer

October 17th 2005, 02:38 PM

Seer,

Ironic you say that since the trinity does infact lead to the worship of a man(which is idolatry), the worship of a being who is fully God and fully man.

best wishes,

Unless Christ was actually God in the flesh...

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 02:50 PM

Unless Christ was actually God in the flesh...

Translation: Christ was actually God in an idol("flesh", man). This is the essence of idolatry.

Idol worshippers believe their god lives in the idol which is often made of clay.They believe the idol intrinsically has no power but the god in it empowers it and renders it worthy of worship.

You're saying the same thing.

best wishes,

Daco

October 17th 2005, 03:04 PM

Hi andiwashere,

Greetings.

Do you know what the trinity entails? Trinitarians believe God is not numerically one , He is three gods('persons') working together in perfect unity as one. Following is how trinitarians explain the doctrine of the trinity:

http://www.rbc.org/ds/q0107/q0107.html (http://www.rbc.org/ds/q0107/q0107.html)

The Bible definitely teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. It also shows that each has a distinct personality. That adds up to three Gods, right? Yes, if we are working with mathematics or thinking of three separate people. But we are dealing with a God who is revealed in the Bible as one God, who has existed eternally as three distinct (not separate) Persons.

Both Testaments, therefore, give us reason to believe that one can be more than one. That this is beyond our ability to fully understand is not reason to reject it, but to try to understand as much as we can of what God has revealed.

Do you find the above to be logical?

Infact Gregory of Nyssa suggests three men as in John ,Peter and kostas,are really three instances of man!

Is this the kind of God you wish to worship ? Jesus told us the most important commandment of all is the Shema,"Behold Oh Israel,the Lord our God,the Lord is one God." Know which verse?

God bless you,

I do not believe that God is trinity. Deuteronomy 4:6 is the Shema Israel and is a fundamental truth of God. In His discussion with the woman at the well of Samaria, Jesus said in John 4:22 "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." If the Trinity is a true understanding of the Godhead, Jesus would have said, We really don't know who we worship either because the Jews believe God is one.
Other than in creation, God is only Father to Jesus and is only referred to as father by Jesus. He did this to demonstrate His relationship with God to His disciples. Matthew 1:18, 20 both say that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus. That being the case, who is God the Father the father of? The truth is the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit. Jesus is the incarnation of God or God manifest in flesh. Jesus had two natures: completely human and completely God. He was not the pre-existing Son. There was no Son until Jesus was born (the difference between the Son of God and God the Son). Jesus is the Son of God, God Himself in the form of a man.

Daco

October 17th 2005, 03:12 PM

Unfortunately, oneness Pentacostals have Christ bearing false witness against Himself.

Michael
How so? I haven't heard about this?

themuzicman

October 17th 2005, 03:21 PM

How so? I haven't heard about this?
31 "If I [alone] bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 "There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true.
...
36 "But the witness which I have is greater than [that of] John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

If Jesus is simply another mode of the Father, then Jesus, as HE SAID in His own words, is bearing witness of Himself, and His witness is not true. Bearing false witness.

There must be a personal separation between God the Father and God the Son for Jesus to be sinless.

Michael

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 03:39 PM

Hi Daco,

You started off well but then took a wrong turn. Alas.

I do not believe that God is trinity.

I concour.

Deuteronomy 4:6 is the Shema Israel and is a fundamental truth of God. In His discussion with the woman at the well of Samaria, Jesus said in John 4:22 "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." If the Trinity is a true understanding of the Godhead, Jesus would have said, We really don't know who we worship either because the Jews believe God is one.

I agree.

The truth is the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit.

Yes.

Jesus is the incarnation of God or God manifest in flesh. Jesus had two natures: completely human and completely God.

Why do you accept the hypostatic union but reject the trinity. Both are formulations of the Catholic Church. You're neither here nor there.

Jesus is the Son of God, God Himself in the form of a man

Don't you know this is idolatry, which God warned us against? Read your 10 commandments again. You're saying God was in an idol of flesh and blood.

themuzicman

October 17th 2005, 04:26 PM

If worshipping Jesus is idolatry, why didn't Jesus stop them?

yoki

October 17th 2005, 04:34 PM

Translation: Christ was actually God in an idol("flesh", man). This is the essence of idolatry.

Idol worshippers believe their god lives in the idol which is often made of clay.They believe the idol intrinsically has no power but the god in it empowers it and renders it worthy of worship.

You're saying the same thing.

No, Seer is not saying the same thing:

I John 4:

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 04:45 PM

Hi yoki,

Unfortunately he's saying just that. To claim "God came in the flesh of a man(Jesus)" is not different from saying God resides/came into an idol made from clay.

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

This verse tells us Jesus came to earth as a literal man in flesh and blood. It says nothing about Jesus being God, or God being in the flesh of Jesus. It was written in part to counter the Gnostic heresy.

best wishes,

andiwashere

October 17th 2005, 05:16 PM

I personally cannot see the atonement as effect if Christ was merely human. A perfect man saves himself, not the whole of the Elect.

Do you agree that priestly animal sacrifices made atonement for humans, in the OT? If so, what part of Christ' sacrifice differs and requires him to be God - in order for the atonement to have effect? Can't you just say he was Gods favored son, and have that be enough?

That's a part of the monotheism importance. I cannot recognize a deity separate and distinct from the Godhead. By religating Christ to a lesser status, you in effect deny that there is one true god, which is a fundamental tenate in all the covenants.

Probably just a mistaken definition of 'divinity' on my part (being anything of, or related to, the Divine). I was thinking of angels and/or the heavenly host as having 'divinity'. I haven't really decided what those are, but I don't think they negate monotheism, as long as you don't worship them.

I am definitely a monotheist. Which is the basis of my dilemma.

thx,
Andi

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 06:06 PM

Hi themuzicman,

If worshipping Jesus is idolatry, why didn't Jesus stop them?

In Mt.18:26 Jesus said, "The servant therefore fell before the Lord and "worshipped" (proskuneo'd) him."

Do you think the servant who fell before his human Lord in Mt. 18:26 worshipped him as God?

I'm asking you to be consistent.

The Greek word proskuneo was used in ancient times of paying respect or doing obeisance to people. A similar gesture is the Arabic "salaam" in which one bends forward (bows) while touching his fingers to his breast (heart), then to his forehead (mind) and then towards a person, to show submission of heart and mind to him.

4352 PROSKUNEO (59): kuneo = to kiss + pros = toward; literally, to blow a kiss. Hence, to show a literal, physical gesture of acquaintance, friendship, or affection.

best wishes,

andiwashere

October 17th 2005, 10:26 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

Do you know what the trinity entails?

If one more persons draws a triangle...I'll...I'll..I'll just nod politely and start counting ceiling tiles.

Do you find the above to be logical?

No. However, I do leave open the possibility that I'm just hard headed.

Jesus told us the most important commandment of all is the Shema,"Behold Oh Israel,the Lord our God,the Lord is one God." Know which verse?

Not exactly, but I think it's just before he tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Thanks for your care.
Andi

Sparko

October 17th 2005, 11:18 PM

Do you agree that priestly animal sacrifices made atonement for humans, in the OT? If so, what part of Christ' sacrifice differs and requires him to be God - in order for the atonement to have effect? Can't you just say he was Gods favored son, and have that be enough?

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The sacrifices were a way to represent what Christ would do. The sacrifices did not actually atone for anything themselves. They merely represented Christ to the Jews until he came.

Christ's sacrifice is what saved them too. One Sacrifice for ALL.

Hebrews 10:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&verse=12&version=31&context=verse)
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

Shadow Phoenix

October 17th 2005, 11:28 PM

Andi. Just some information here also. Py is incorrect in stating that Trinitarians believe in three gods. He's also incorrect in the affirmation of Deuteronomy 4:6. It should be 6:4. I just had to point that one out.

Andi. Feel free to read both sides of the argument though. Compare what the Trinitarians say to what the anti-Trinitarians say. I will tell you though that Antis usually do build up a false idea such as Py routinely does here. (We've all got used to it by now.)

And by the way, there is no logical contradiction in the Trinity. One hasn't been shown yet, nor will one ever be shown. That is the only way you could say the Trinity is illogical. It cannot be fully understood, but that does not equal illogical.

Xmansmommy

October 17th 2005, 11:49 PM

If worshipping Jesus is idolatry, why didn't Jesus stop them?

Did Nebuchadnezzar commit idolatry when he worshipped and caused others to worship Daniel? Worship has many different aspects in scripture and it was done often. Worship was not necessarily worshipping someone as God but showing reverence for them. It wasn't always idolatry.

John from Ebla

October 18th 2005, 05:20 AM

That's a good point. But one should think that the essential and/or important doctrines are laid out quite clearly. For instance, that there is only one God is clearly laid out in scripture, time and time again, e.g., "Hear O Israel, God is One." Also, John 3:16 clearly lays out the basis of salvation, not to mention Romans 3, etc., etc.

As I see it, the essential doctrines are clearly laid out, and some not so essential doctrines are laid too, e.g., predestination. So if scripture does lay out the essential and the not-so-essential doctrines, what does this say about those doctrines which the Bible DOES NOT lay out clearly?

That is another good point too. However, given the context of Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of heaven, the hidden things He talks about, as you quoted, are revealed to "little children." and if you can find a little child who can understand the doctrine of the Trinity, I do wish you luck. Jesus here was talking about spiritual matters and not necessarily doctrinal matters. I see a big distinction between these two.

As for Paul and his "mysteries," well, I really don't want to go there right now except to mention the fact that if anyone was to reveal the mystery of the Holy Trinity, it should have been Paul since the Holy Spirit seemed to have been revealing so many new and wonderful things to him; but St. Paul did not give that mystery as well, even though he liberally expounded on all the others.

The Almighty did lay the essential doctrines through the scriptures. Of course, He could have waited for centuries later and revealed them through His church, but I doubt you are Catholic or Orthodox (given your username) and would agree with this way of thinking.

Yoki,

"And the Messenger of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob........." (Exodus 3:2-14).

It’s clear as daylight and written in black and white- but you don't see it- is it because you don't want to or is it because some rabbi decided to make a law of agency.

Why is the law of agency not is scriptures? O/T or New

Hmm, l see! We had to wait till the poor rabbis got back on their feet after 70AD, once they did, they made up their own Jewish law of agency, just to make sure people reject the scripture- just as they did when the messiah paid them a visit. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

themuzicman

October 18th 2005, 08:11 AM

Did Nebuchadnezzar commit idolatry when he worshipped and caused others to worship Daniel? Worship has many different aspects in scripture and it was done often. Worship was not necessarily worshipping someone as God but showing reverence for them. It wasn't always idolatry.

Apparantly you read Daniel 2:46, but didn't read Daniel 2:47.

47 The king answered Daniel and said, "Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery."

The purpose of falling before Daniel WAS to worship God, as is clearly stated, here.

When you see it happen to Herod, he is eaten by worms, because he does not direct praise to God.

So, what does Jesus do? Direct them to God, or receive their worship?

Michael

Xmansmommy

October 18th 2005, 08:24 AM

Apparantly you read Daniel 2:46, but didn't read Daniel 2:47.

47 The king answered Daniel and said, "Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery."

The purpose of falling before Daniel WAS to worship God, as is clearly stated, here.

I agree.

When you see it happen to Herod, he is eaten by worms, because he does not direct praise to God.

Yup.

So, what does Jesus do? Direct them to God, or receive their worship?

Michael

Both.

themuzicman

October 18th 2005, 08:24 AM

Both.

Both? Where in scripture is someone worshipping Jesus, and Jesus directs them to God, deflecting the praise from Himself?

Xmansmommy

October 18th 2005, 09:06 AM

Both? Where in scripture is someone worshipping Jesus, and Jesus directs them to God, deflecting the praise from Himself?

All throughout scripture Jesus points people to the Father. And let's not forget, they worshipped him as the Son of God. He referred to himself as the Son of God. Matthew 14:33, 15:9-13, 18:26-35, 19:17, 28:17-19 (He insinuates that it's God that has given him all power in heaven and earth), Mark 10:18, Luke 24:49-53, John 4:23-24. I realize that it is surely a matter of interpretation on some of these verses but some are pretty clear at least to me.

Why is it that Nebby worshipped God through Daniel but anyone worshipping Jesus wasn't worshipping God through Jesus?

themuzicman

October 18th 2005, 10:03 AM

All throughout scripture Jesus points people to the Father. And let's not forget, they worshipped him as the Son of God. He referred to himself as the Son of God. Matthew 14:33, 15:9-13, 18:26-35, 19:17, 28:17-19 (He insinuates that it's God that has given him all power in heaven and earth), Mark 10:18, Luke 24:49-53, John 4:23-24. I realize that it is surely a matter of interpretation on some of these verses but some are pretty clear at least to me.

Why is it that Nebby worshipped God through Daniel but anyone worshipping Jesus wasn't worshipping God through Jesus?
Because Neb wasn't worshipping God through Daniel. Verse 47 clearly directs Neb's worship to God, even though Daniel is standing there as the one through whom God was recognized.

--

Now, granted that Jesus pointed people to the Father. That's His role.

When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Jesus clearly accepts their worship of HIM as worship of HIM, here.

Matt 14:33, Jesus doesn't deflect their worship.
Matt 15 is a prophecy from Isaiah.
Matt 18 is a parable.
In Matt 19, Jesus is prodding him about whether he thinks Jesus is God.

Not sure what Luke 24 has to do with this.

And as for John 4, the fact that we worship God the Father (and I believe we should) doesn't reduce Jesus' worthiness to be worshipped.

Furthermore, Jesus' reference to Himself as the Son of God, or (more importantly) the Son of Man is a clear indication of His nature as God. The only "Son of Man" (previous to Christ) was Adam, whom God created, and was called the Son of God as well. The only other Son of Man or Son of God that could come into existance would have to be God Himself taking a human nature to Himself, which is promised in the prophets.

The Jews CLEARLY knew that Jesus was claiming to be God, threatening to stone him in John 8, and then the High Priest calling Jesus' claim to be the Son of God blasphemy at Jesus' trial before them. They knew what Jesus was claiming to be.

In the context and culture in which Jesus spoke, there simply isn't any question that He claimed to be God.

Michael

andiwashere

October 18th 2005, 12:04 PM

Hey Sparko, thanks for the reply and verse quote.

The sacrifices did not actually atone for anything themselves.

Throughout the OT, sacrifices are said to 'make an atonement for sin'. Often the atonement is said to result in forgiveness of sin. If these atonements are only shadows of what was to come, it is because these OT atonements can also be translated as 'coverings'. Perhaps they did not 'pay' the debt of sin, they merely covered the debts from the sight of God (by Gods agreement). And, they only covered sins committed in advance of the sacrifice.

Perhaps it is true that the sacrifice of Jesus did not merely 'cover' our sins, thereby providing atonement. Instead, His sacrifice created a new covenant by which our sins do not, in the first place, create a debt to be covered or erased. In which case, atonement is 'once and for all'.

Either way, it's a little hard to say OT sacrifices didn't atone for sin, when...they did.

And, my original question still stands. Why is it necessary that the new covenant sacrifice be the physical sacrifice of God himself? For the sake of consistency, I can see that a 'once and for all' sacrifice should have a higher value then the 'once for a few mens past sins' sacrifice (of a goat). But, a 'favored son' can certainly qualify as having greater value then a goat.

Again, thank you for the reply. It's only through yours, and others, replies that I can begin to grasp the complexity of my OP.

Andi

Sparko

October 18th 2005, 12:26 PM

Hey Sparko, thanks for the reply and verse quote.

Throughout the OT, sacrifices are said to 'make an atonement for sin'. Often the atonement is said to result in forgiveness of sin. If these atonements are only shadows of what was to come, it is because these OT atonements can also be translated as 'coverings'. Perhaps they did not 'pay' the debt of sin, they merely covered the debts from the sight of God (by Gods agreement). And, they only covered sins committed in advance of the sacrifice.

Perhaps it is true that the sacrifice of Jesus did not merely 'cover' our sins, thereby providing atonement. Instead, His sacrifice created a new covenant by which our sins do not, in the first place, create a debt to be covered or erased. In which case, atonement is 'once and for all'.

Either way, it's a little hard to say OT sacrifices didn't atone for sin, when...they did.

They were merely the instrument though which God allowed them to show their worship and repentance. They were the physical representation of Christ's sacrifice to the Jews. They did not know of what Jesus would do exactly, but God did tell them over and over that HE was their savior. And HE was their Judge. The animals did not pay for anything in themselves. They just represented what God was going to do in Jesus.

And, my original question still stands. Why is it necessary that the new covenant sacrifice be the physical sacrifice of God himself? For the sake of consistency, I can see that a 'once and for all' sacrifice should have a higher value then the 'once for a few mens past sins' sacrifice (of a goat). But, a 'favored son' can certainly qualify as having greater value then a goat.

Well since God is the one who is being sinned against, only he can forgive the sins. His justice demands that he cannot forgive them without payment, right? So who is the only being 'large' enough to pay for all of the sins? God. God can pay the price that he demands. Any lesser creature could only pay for his own sins, not for every ones.

And don't forget, YHWH said he was the ONLY savior. We know that Jesus was our savior. Put the two together and who do you think Jesus is?

YHWH:
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

---
Jesus:
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

There are many other parallels between YHWH in the Old Testament and Jesus..

Shepherd:
YHWH
Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD.

JESUS
John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Judging the Sheep and Goats:
YHWH
Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep.

JESUS
Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Judging mankind:
YHWH
Joel 3:12 "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." (God is speaking)
JESUS
John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

Creator:

YHWH
Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

JESUS
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

(if YHWH created everything by himself and we know that Jesus created all things, then Jesus must be God, eh?)

Again, thank you for the reply. It's only through yours, and others, replies that I can begin to grasp the complexity of my OP.

Andi

You're welcome.

Daco

October 18th 2005, 01:25 PM

I agree.

Yup.

Both.

Jesus did not need to direct worship to God. He is God in the flesh of a man. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father John 14:9 and again in John 10:30 I and my father are one.. Jesus received worship because worship belongs to Him. To worship Jesus is certainly not idolatry. Just because He became a man does not make Him any less God.

Xmansmommy

October 18th 2005, 02:07 PM

Because Neb wasn't worshipping God through Daniel. Verse 47 clearly directs Neb's worship to God, even though Daniel is standing there as the one through whom God was recognized.

So I'll ask again, why is it that when Neb worshipped he was worshipping God through Daniel and it's not the case with Jesus?

--

Now, granted that Jesus pointed people to the Father. That's His role.

Wasn't that what Daniel did? Nebby even went so far as to offer oblations and incense. Do you have any evidence that Daniel made them stop? He accepted the gifts and position Nebby gave him. That could be viewed as accepting of worship.

When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Jesus clearly accepts their worship of HIM as worship of HIM, here.

Yes He accepted worship here. He had just risen from the dead. Surely something they had not witnessed before. Those that seen him thought it was a fairly significant event and they worshipped although some did not. He told them not to be afraid because they were shaking in their boots. But He also made it known that it was God the Father who gave him power in heaven and earth. And lest Jesus take all the credit, he told them to go baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Why should he deflect worship? And if he should, how could he have done it without specifying "don't worship me"?

Matt 14:33, Jesus doesn't deflect their worship.

No he doesn't. Because they worshipped him as the Son of God, not God Himself.

Matt 15 is a prophecy from Isaiah.

Yes referring to the Father and worshipping Him. Insignificant if not for that fact. But ok, it's irrelevant to this discussion otherwise.

Matt 18 is a parable.

Not sure why I put that one in there. An oversight on my part, sorry. :blush:

In Matt 19, Jesus is prodding him about whether he thinks Jesus is God.

That's how Trinitarians interpret that. But I don't see why it's necessary to. Jesus was saying God (not Himself) is the only good one.

Not sure what Luke 24 has to do with this.

In verse 49-53, they worshipped Jesus while returning to Jerusalem yet in the next verse the continously praised and worshipped God. I see it as they were worshipping Jesus and the Father in those verses.

And as for John 4, the fact that we worship God the Father (and I believe we should) doesn't reduce Jesus' worthiness to be worshipped.

Does his worthiness automatically make him God?

Furthermore, Jesus' reference to Himself as the Son of God, or (more importantly) the Son of Man is a clear indication of His nature as God.

Howso?

The only "Son of Man" (previous to Christ) was Adam, whom God created, and was called the Son of God as well.

Yes and he was never confused with God because he was referenced as Son of God was he?

The only other Son of Man or Son of God that could come into existance would have to be God Himself taking a human nature to Himself, which is promised in the prophets.

You mean a Messiah? God with us? Does God Himself have to come for God to be with us?

The Jews CLEARLY knew that Jesus was claiming to be God, threatening to stone him in John 8, and then the High Priest calling Jesus' claim to be the Son of God blasphemy at Jesus' trial before them. They knew what Jesus was claiming to be.

Well this is often what Trinitarians say but why is it that claiming to be the Son of God equates being God Himself? And if Jesus was claiming to be God Himself, why not just say it outright? Why the term, Son of God?

In the context and culture in which Jesus spoke, there simply isn't any question that He claimed to be God.

Michael

Michael, I'm not arguing for or against the trinity so much as I'm trying to understand and put all the scriptures together to reconcile them. As I've shared before the entire topic is extremely confusing for me. That's why I'm asking my questions here. Thanks for your patience in explaining your view and for answering my questions. :smile:

Xmansmommy

October 18th 2005, 02:13 PM

Jesus did not need to direct worship to God. He is God in the flesh of a man. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father John 14:9 and again in John 10:30 I and my father are one.. Jesus received worship because worship belongs to Him. To worship Jesus is certainly not idolatry. Just because He became a man does not make Him any less God.

Daco, those are assumptions I'm not willing to make. If that's the conclusion you've come to through studying the scriptures, that's wonderful. My studies haven't provided me with the same conclusion as of yet. And whether or not he needed to direct worship to God, he did. And if he accepted it himself that don't automatically mean that he's God as I think scripture often shows people worshipping other people who were not God. Admittedly I have much more to study on this subject but I'm not willing to accept it without thought.

themuzicman

October 18th 2005, 02:48 PM

So I'll ask again, why is it that when Neb worshipped he was worshipping God through Daniel and it's not the case with Jesus?

Because Neb was directing his praise to GOD (See v.47), whereas the praise directed at Jesus was intended for Jesus.

--

Wasn't that what Daniel did? Nebby even went so far as to offer oblations and incense. Do you have any evidence that Daniel made them stop? He accepted the gifts and position Nebby gave him. That could be viewed as accepting of worship.

Again, read more carefully. Neb's worship is directed TO GOD. Your church recieves gifts and offerings every week, but you're not worshipping your church, are you? You are directing your worship to GOD.

Very different than Matt 28:17.

Yes He accepted worship here. He had just risen from the dead. Surely something they had not witnessed before. Those that seen him thought it was a fairly significant event and they worshipped although some did not.

Some doubted. See Thomas in another gospel.

He told them not to be afraid because they were shaking in their boots. But He also made it known that it was God the Father who gave him power in heaven and earth. And lest Jesus take all the credit, he told them to go baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Why should he deflect worship? And if he should, how could he have done it without specifying "don't worship me"?

Isn't Jesus the Son? Isn't that receiving the worship they offered for Himself, even if in part?

If Jesus wasn't appropriately the object of worship, His response should have been "give praise to God, for I am not worthy of it."

No he doesn't. Because they worshipped him as the Son of God, not God Himself.

I don't know how you can read John 1, and not know that the disciples believed that Jesus was God. They knew their scriptures. The Messiah would BE almighty God. In calling him the Messiah, Peter was acknowledging just that.

That's how Trinitarians interpret that. But I don't see why it's necessary to. Jesus was saying God (not Himself) is the only good one.

It's not relevant either way.

In verse 49-53, they worshipped Jesus while returning to Jerusalem yet in the next verse the continously praised and worshipped God. I see it as they were worshipping Jesus and the Father in those verses.

Yes. Thus, if Jesus is worthy of praise given to God...

Does his worthiness automatically make him God?

Who else is worthy of praise? (Your psalms might be helpful, here.)

Howso?

The offspring of God would be God. Furthermore, the Son of Man, in reference to Adam, would designate someone who was not strictly of the lineage of Adam. The only way this could happen would be either for God to make another human being, which wouldn't be able to affect the line of Adam in any way, since he would be unrelated to them, or for God to take a human nature to Himself, and be born of a woman, such as happened.

"Son of Man" is also significant in OT prophecy.

Yes and he was never confused with God because he was referenced as Son of God was he?

What could the Son of God be but God Himself? Men don't give birth to horses, and God, if He is a Father, begets God. Granted that it's a bit different, since the son is eternally begotten by the Father (something no one can explain), but that's the only way to interpret it.

You mean a Messiah? God with us? Does God Himself have to come for God to be with us?

In the way that "Emmanuel" means, yes.

Well this is often what Trinitarians say but why is it that claiming to be the Son of God equates being God Himself? And if Jesus was claiming to be God Himself, why not just say it outright? Why the term, Son of God?

Because He would have been stoned for saying it. That wasn't the death He was supposed to die. If you read the gospel accounts, Jesus rides the fine line between being a teacher of the people and being a blasphemer in their eyes.

Michael, I'm not arguing for or against the trinity so much as I'm trying to understand and put all the scriptures together to reconcile them. As I've shared before the entire topic is extremely confusing for me. That's why I'm asking my questions here. Thanks for your patience in explaining your view and for answering my questions. :smile:

Unfortunately, the trinity is something we see clearly from scripture, but simply don't have suficient minds to grasp how it all works. The church has struggled for many centuries trying to find the right way to express it, and hasn't done better than the Nicene creed, which states the facts, but doesn't attempt to explain the ontology.

Michael

Pythagoras

October 18th 2005, 03:44 PM

Hi andiwashere,

Not exactly, but I think it's just before he tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Thanks for your care.
Andi

Some translations have Jesus saying in Mark 12:29, "the first of all the commandments is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our god , the Lord is one."

http://baharna.com/logos/log016.htm

Others like the NIV say "the most important one", answered Jesus, "isthis,'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the lord is one."...".

All bible translations basically say the same thing, that Jesus believed the Shema to be the greatest commandment of all, more so than loving the Lord(!) , which is more important than loving one's neighbour.

Look at the progression of Mark 12:28-30.

God bless,

alam

October 18th 2005, 08:59 PM

And don't forget, YHWH said he was the ONLY savior. We know that Jesus was our savior. Put the two together and who do you think Jesus is?

[indent]YHWH:
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

---
Jesus:
[font=Arial]1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

These verses do not preclude God saving through creations.

וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־ײ וַיָּקֶם ײ מוֹשִׁיעַ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם אֵת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז... וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ־ײ וַיִּשׁפּט אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה

And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war... (also Judges 3:15; 2 Ki. 13:5; Obadiah 21; Acts 5:31; 13:23)

The principle by which such statements are reconciled with Hosea 13:4 may be applied in the other cases too.

Peace

John from Ebla

October 18th 2005, 10:31 PM

These verses do not preclude God saving through creations.

וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־ײ וַיָּקֶם ײ מוֹשִׁיעַ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם אֵת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז... וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ־ײ וַיִּשׁפּט אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה

And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war... (also Judges 3:15; 2 Ki. 13:5; Obadiah 21; Acts 5:31; 13:23)

The principle by which such statements are reconciled with Hosea 13:4 may be applied in the other cases too.

Peace

Hi alam,

"And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war... "

The children of Israel still died and are still dying in their sin no matter how many created men come to their aid. “Othnie” delivered them out of trouble, but how did it save them from eternal death- this is what God is telling them “there is no other savior” Creation can not be saved through creation.

The blood of a Goat, a lamb or a dove would only roll the sin ahead for a space of time under the Old Testament Levitical law- but in the ignorance of the true and living God, that appeared to Abraham in visible form, ancients monotheists, pagan in their belief, offered human sacrifices in their pagan witchcraft ceremonies in attempt to win the approval of there god.

Ancient Israel started to follow pagan monotheisms by sacrificing humans just like the nations around them: “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) (2 Kgs. 21:6, 2 Chron. 33:6) (2 Kgs. 16:1-3)

If Jesus was not God in nature, (2 Cor 5:19) wouldn’t God have to apologies to all those pagans that practice human sacrifices “I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) Sending creation to save creation? or as you say "another god" this is absurb

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

alam

October 18th 2005, 11:12 PM

Hi alam,

"And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war... "

The children of Israel still died and are still dying in their sin no matter how many created men come to their aid. “Othnie” delivered them out of trouble, but how did it save them from eternal death- this is what God is telling them “there is no other savior” Creation can not be saved through creation.

The blood of a Goat, a lamb or a dove would only roll the sin ahead for a space of time under the Old Testament Levitical law- but in the ignorance of the true and living God, that appeared to Abraham in visible form, ancients monotheists, pagan in their belief, offered human sacrifices in their pagan witchcraft ceremonies in attempt to win the approval of there god.

Ancient Israel started to follow pagan monotheisms by sacrificing humans just like the nations around them: “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) (2 Kgs. 21:6, 2 Chron. 33:6) (2 Kgs. 16:1-3)

If Jesus was not God in nature, (2 Cor 5:19) wouldn’t God have to apologies to all those pagans that practice human sacrifices “I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) Sending creation to save creation? or as you say "another god" this is absurb

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

John from Ebla,

we can do the same discussion here as on the other thread. What I wrote there carries over:

"AFAICT your response is that God cannot make a subordinate Savior from sin. Since this seems to be the essence of your present argument, you need to show us where you have learned this in the Bible. If you cannot, I think we would have to conclude from Acts 5:31 that God has made a subordinate Savior from sin."

Given the exclusive reading you assume:

"Isaiah 43:11 does not say that God is the only Savior from sin; it says that He is the only Savior period. You could read into it that God is the only Savior from sin, but we could as well read that God is the sole principle of salvation--apart from Him (mibbal`ādhō) there is no real salvation."

Regards

apostoli

October 19th 2005, 01:23 AM

Hi Guys,

Hi alam...If Jesus was not God in nature, (2 Cor 5:19) wouldn’t God have to apologies to all those pagans that practice human sacrifices “I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) Sending creation to save creation? or as you say "another god" this is absurb

Seems neither A.Paul nor A.John would agree with some of the comments made on this thread. A couple of quotes regarding the teaching in the NT regarding worship of Jesus, his appointment as our saviour and who God is....

1 John 4:14-15 "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God."

Phil 2:9-11 "God also has highly exhalted [Jesus] and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every [thing in heaven, on earth and under the earth] should bow, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God=the Father."

1 Cor 8:10 "But to us there is but one God=the Father"

1 Cor 11:3 "the head of Christ is God.

Where I differ from many is I believe Jesus had a pre-existence and was begotten (not created ex nilio) by God to be his only true Son. I realise the philosophical argument against such a thought but at least it requires no interpretation of scripture, just a simple literal acceptance of what has been revealed.

Grace be to you, and peace, from God=the Father, and from our Lord=Jesus Christ (Gal 1:3).

John from Ebla

October 19th 2005, 02:27 AM

Hi Guys,

Seems neither A.Paul nor A.John would agree with some of the comments made on this thread. A couple of quotes regarding the teaching in the NT regarding worship of Jesus, his appointment as our saviour and who God is....

1 John 4:14-15 "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God."

Phil 2:9-11 "God also has highly exhalted [Jesus] and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every [thing in heaven, on earth and under the earth] should bow, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God=the Father."

1 Cor 8:10 "But to us there is but one God=the Father"

1 Cor 11:3 "the head of Christ is God.

Where I differ from many is I believe Jesus had a pre-existence and was begotten (not created ex nilio) by God to be his only true Son. I realise the philosophical argument against such a thought but at least it requires no interpretation of scripture, just a simple literal acceptance of what has been revealed.

Grace be to you, and peace, from God=the Father, and from our Lord=Jesus Christ (Gal 1:3).

True, but Paul said ' God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19)
One God and One Lord. If the Lord is not God- then neither is God the Lord- because one is one for both. Ex 20:2 “ l am the LORD your……. ? (another god) No! “The Lord Your GOD”

"Hear of Israel' Your Lord God is one Lord" who’s the Lord God? There is only One Lord

But, what you are trying to say is, another god was in Christ. Paul did not say- "Thy shall have no other gods" (Ex 20:3) :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 19th 2005, 02:48 AM

John from Ebla,

we can do the same discussion here as on the other thread. What I wrote there carries over:

"AFAICT your response is that God cannot make a subordinate Savior from sin. Since this seems to be the essence of your present argument, you need to show us where you have learned this in the Bible. If you cannot, I think we would have to conclude from Acts 5:31 that God has made a subordinate Savior from sin."

Given the exclusive reading you assume:

"Isaiah 43:11 does not say that God is the only Savior from sin; it says that He is the only Savior period. You could read into it that God is the only Savior from sin, but we could as well read that God is the sole principle of salvation--apart from Him (mibbal`ādhō) there is no real salvation."

Regards

"Spilling of blood" The whole of the O/T is about "Spilling of blood" Sheep, goat, dove, and/or any other form of creation, e.g. other gods.

The question is? What kind of blood is for a sanctuary. The Lord of Host (Isaiah 9:13-15) This is about the stone that you are stumbling on. :smile: What kind of blood is the Lord of host?

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 19th 2005, 07:37 AM

Hi John From Elba,
True, but Paul said ' God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19)
One God and One Lord. If the Lord is not God- then neither is God the Lord- because one is one for both. Ex 20:2 “ l am the LORD your……. ? (another god) No! “The Lord Your GOD”

"Hear oh Israel' Your Lord God is one Lord" who’s the Lord God? There is only One Lord

But, what you are trying to say is, another god was in Christ. Paul did not say- "Thy shall have no other gods" (Ex 20:3)

Maybe I've misunderstood your post, but I perceive you are saying that the Father and the Son are the same person in different modes. Father as the source of the Christ in his humanity and thus Jesus is spoken as Son but in the context of, as an eminission of the Father (eg: Light from the sun). That is: different perspective of the same thing.

My view tends to concord with the Nicene convention, where the Son and Father are perceived as different individualities but representative of a single Godhead as opposed to a singularity of Godship. Basically as even the modern definition (both papal and eastern orthodox creeds) of faith teaches there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, god from God.

Possibly the original Athanasius in his fight against the Arians might provide some insight:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/original/discourse3-1.html

"Discourse 3.Chapter 23. Texts explained; seventhly, John xiv. 10.
Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son
Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their
Substance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One
Substance, because the Second Person is the Son of the First...Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One
God, because the Son is in the Father. "

2 Thess 1:12 "[May] the name of our [King, Jesus Christ] be glorified in you, and you in him, because of the grace of our [King] Jesus Christ and also of our God, [our Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, our God and the God of our King Jesus Christ] (See John 20:17).

"Peace from God=our Father, and our King=Jesus Christ." (2 Thess 1:2)

John from Ebla

October 19th 2005, 08:07 AM

Hi John From Elba,

Maybe I've misunderstood your post, but I perceive you are saying that the Father and the Son are the same person in different modes. Father as the source of the Christ in his humanity and thus Jesus is spoken as Son but in the context of, as an eminission of the Father (eg: Light from the sun). That is: different perspective of the same thing.

My view tends to concord with the Nicene convention, where the Son and Father are perceived as different individualities but representative of a single Godhead as opposed to a singularity of Godship. Basically as even the modern definition (both papal and eastern orthodox creeds) of faith teaches there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, god from God.

Possibly the original Athanasius in his fight against the Arians might provide some insight:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/original/discourse3-1.html

"Discourse 3.Chapter 23. Texts explained; seventhly, John xiv. 10.
Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son
Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their
Substance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One
Substance, because the Second Person is the Son of the First...Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One
God, because the Son is in the Father. "

2 Thess 1:12 "[May] the name of our [King, Jesus Christ] be glorified in you, and you in him, because of the grace of our [King] Jesus Christ and also of our God, [our Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, our God and the God of our King Jesus Christ] (See John 20:17).

"Peace from God=our Father, and the Lord=Jesus Christ." (2 Thess 1:2)

Hi,

"god" is another god. If he the same substance, essense of the father then he is the same form as GOD- not another god. As Paul said "in the form of God, of what makes God, God- not another god.

God is spirit not Person

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 19th 2005, 08:44 AM

Hi John from Elba,

Hi, "god" is another god. If he the same substance, essense of the father then he is the same form as GOD- not another god. As Paul said "in the form of God, of what makes God, God- not another god.
God is spirit not PersonNovatian (210-280 AD) discusses this quite eloquently in his Treatise concerning the Trinity. Worth a read. It concludes...

"Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creature subdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that He moreover "was heard," briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and true God."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

If I may give a slightly different perspective to "God is Spirit." If God dwells in Christ and we in him as the the scriptures suggest (I'm thinking Jn 17:21, where we also are one in God and his Christ), is it possible that God is not a physicality but a unity of will. I should clarify. To me God is not a concept but a singular reality and is the Father of us all, the source of all things, including his Son and Christ. From an OT revelation God is revealed as an organisation, a government, prefigured by representations and interventions of angels, priests, judges, kings and prophets. God is one, and the Father is our ultimate King but he has permitted intermediaries to represent him on earth. There is no man made administrative concepts or rituals that can compete with his ultimate plan but he permits peoples conceptions (churches, rtiuals etc) to persist (as long as they flow with the plan or at least reveal his opposition to man concepts). In the end, Rev does talk about the establishment of the Kingdom of God, with the lamb and the select sitting by his side and God sharing his rule with those who are one in will with him.

Again, if I may share: consider the original Athanasius view, an extract from his statement of faith:
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2021.HTM#TopOfPage
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2022.HTM

"For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same7 essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, `I came out from the Father and am come' (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, `I was by Him as one setting in order' (Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father. For `He that hath seen' the Son `hath seen the Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: `In Him were all things created, and He is before all' (Col. i. 16). Now He says not, `was created' before all things, but `is' before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but `is before all' applies to the Son only."

As Novatian (or maybe it was Hippolytus (I'll check back and quote if you like)) wrote "Jesus has been made God to us" just as Moses was made God to Pharaoh, the Judges were made God to the Israelites etc.

A.Paul tells us that the ultimate plan is that all things will be subjected to the Father so "that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:20-28).

Grace be with you and peace, from God=our Father, and from the King =Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:2)

John from Ebla

October 19th 2005, 09:31 AM

Hi John from Elba,

Novatian (210-280 AD) discusses this quite eloquently in his Treatise concerning the Trinity. Worth a read. It concludes...

"Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creature subdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that He moreover "was heard," briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and true God."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

If I may give a slightly different perspective to "God is Spirit." If God dwells in Christ and we in him as the the scriptures suggest (I'm thinking Jn 17:21, where we also are one in God and his Christ), is it possible that God is not a physicality but a unity of will. I should clarify. To me God is a reality but it is the Father of us all that is the source of all things, including his Son and Christ. From an OT revelation God is an organisation, a government, prefigured by interventions of angels, priests, judges, kings and prophets. God is one and there is no man made administrative concepts or rituals that can compete. Rev does talk about the establishment of the Kingdom of God, with the lamb and the select sitting by his side.

Again, if I may share: consider the original Athanasius view, his statement of faith:
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2021.HTM#TopOfPage
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2022.HTM

"For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same7 essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, `I came out from the Father and am come' (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, `I was by Him as one setting in order' (Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father. For `He that hath seen' the Son `hath seen the Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: `In Him were all things created, and He is before all' (Col. i. 16). Now He says not, `was created' before all things, but `is' before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but `is before all' applies to the Son only."

As Novatian (or maybe it was Hippolytus (I'll check back and quote if you like)) wrote "Jesus has been made God to us" just as Moses was made God to Pharaoh, the Judges were made God to the Israelites etc.

A.Paul tells us that the ultimate plan is that all things will be subjected to the Father so "that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:20-28).

Grace be with you and peace, from God=our Father, and from the King Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:2)

Just in short because l am out of time.

Who is in us- the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Scriptures support all and anyone one without distinction other than saying it is God, Christ or Spirit- they are treated as One. To say that we are all God is false, since in us is an influential spirit that leads us in grace and truth- not the Fullness of what God is.

The second commandment is “thy shall have no other gods” how can Jesus be another form of god?

Do you perceive God as a puppet outside the universe? If so, then l can understand your point- but if not then the spirit of God is (the essence, substance of what God is) what makes the son the same GOD not another different god. The father and Son are the one God Spirit. :smile:

KInd regards
John From Ebla

Daco

October 19th 2005, 09:52 AM

Daco, those are assumptions I'm not willing to make. If that's the conclusion you've come to through studying the scriptures, that's wonderful. My studies haven't provided me with the same conclusion as of yet. And whether or not he needed to direct worship to God, he did. And if he accepted it himself that don't automatically mean that he's God as I think scripture often shows people worshipping other people who were not God. Admittedly I have much more to study on this subject but I'm not willing to accept it without thought.
I agree. You should not accept assumptions without studying them out. Jesus said, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me (John 5:39). May He open your understanding and mine.

apostoli

October 19th 2005, 09:56 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Just in short because l am out of time.

Who is in us- the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Scriptures support all and anyone one without distinction other than saying it is God, Christ or Spirit- they are treated as One. To say that we are all God is false, since in us is an influential spirit that leads us in grace and truth- not the Fullness of what God is.

The second commandment is “thy shall have no other gods” how can Jesus be another form of god?

Do you perceive God as a puppet outside the universe? If so, then l can understand your point- but if not then the spirit of God is (the essence, substance of what God is) what makes the son the same GOD not another different god. The father and Son are the one God Spirit.I too have run out of time and as your queries require a more detailed response than I have time available, I'll have to defer a reply until tomorrow.

Our discussion has been illuminated upon by possibly greater minds than ours for close on 2000 years, so it is useful at least to be informed about what the original discussion was all about. So, I do encourage you to read the links to Athanasius and Novatian that I provided.

Pointedly, throughout time, oneness belief has been in a minority position at least in the context of scriptural support and philosophical discussion. From the time the teaching arose, it has been hotly fought against. I personally wonder about this, as it is such an uncomplicated explanation - even if it does accord particularly well with a Hindu conception of God.

Sparko

October 19th 2005, 10:03 AM

Grace be with you and peace, from God=our Father, and from the King =Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:2)

don't you mean:

Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ?

That's what my bible has.

And while on the subject of greetings as proof texts...

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Anti-trinitarians like to divide and conquer. They want to isolate each place that Jesus is called God and try to explain it away and think that ends it. But the overwhelming amount of evidence is that Jesus was God. You need to take it all in together. Sure one verse here or there could be 'misread' by trinitarians, but when it shows up as a theme throughout the bible and new testament, then you need to sit back and take notice. To ignore the totality of the evidence is being intellectually dishonest.

John chapter 1 goes to great lengths to say that Jesus is the Word become flesh and that the Word is GOD. If he didn't mean to imply that, then John would not have even bothered to write that chapter. There is no other reason for it. It says Jesus is the Word, the word is God, the Word became flesh, the Word is the Creator of all things.

Colossians 1:16 says the same thing and makes sure you know it is talking about Jesus being the creator. Again, if he is NOT God, then what is the purpose of such verses that imply that he IS? To confuse?

John also goes to great lengths to show that John the baptist was the one who proclaimed the coming of Jesus and was the one crying out in the desert. Looking back at Isaiah who do we see as the prophet proclaiming to come???

YHWH himself!

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

So who is John the baptist proclaiming? YHWH! Who came? JESUS. You do the math.

Thomas called him God directly too.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

God the Father even calls Jesus God!

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Now I know your plan will be to try to single out each verse and try to come up with some alternate meaning but I am telling the readers to DO THE MATH. The sheer volume of evidence that Jesus is God is overwhelming in the bible. I have but touched the tip of the iceberg in this post.

The overwhelming evidence is that Jesus IS God.

schotzy

October 19th 2005, 09:52 PM

John from Ebla

October 19th 2005, 11:34 PM

Hello all . . . new to TheologyWeb. Wonderful discussion on this thread. Please give me your opinions: are Modalists Christian? I know of some (Dr. James White, in particular) who argue that Oneness folks do not believe in the Biblical Jesus and are thus not saved. I am a Trinitarian but attend a Oneness Pentacostal church. And I love these people. (Major T.D. Jakes fan as well.) I have heard absolutely nothing that sets them apart from me other than their belief that there is no such thing as trinity.

Are they worshipping the same Jesus as I? Should I separate myself from them?

Curious and thank you for your thoughtful responses.

schotzy

Isn't Oneness and trinity the same thing- oneness say that Jesus and the Father are the “One God” (Spirit) even though they are two- while trinity say they are “One God” (Spirit) even though they are three. Technically speaking, it comes down to how you understand God (spirit)- l think triune is more scripture.

Paul said, (1Cor 8:6) “One God” and then goes on and explains- the Father, source of all things and One LORD Jesus, through and by whom are all things. There is only one Creator, “ Let us make man in our image” Jesus (The Lord God of the O/T) what ever you think don’t fall for the trap of making for yourself other gods, by denying that Jesus is The LORD GOD and making him another god. The second commandment is, thy shall have no other gods

The father is a spirit that is everywhere and anywhere- Paul writes, “He is not far for each one of us” (Acts 17:27) verse 28, “for in him we live and move and have our being”

The LORD GOD who created all things does not work independently of the one source, (Father) and the Father did not sustain or created anything independently of the One Lord God.

The LORD (JESUS/ LOGOS) and The Father are one God.

God has to have a presence because he dwelt amongst the Israelites- In Ex 24:1 Moses was to see the form of God "Very Presence of God " "Shekinah" that man can see. The image of the invisible God that man was created in- the Elohim plural. It is not another god, a lesser god or two gods it is the "Echad God” :smile:

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

schotzy

October 20th 2005, 05:44 AM

Isn't Oneness and trinity the same thing- oneness say that Jesus and the Father are the “One God” (Spirit) even though they are two- while trinity say they are “One God” (Spirit) even though they are three. Technically speaking, it comes down to how you understand God (spirit)- l think triune is more scripture. . . .

John From Ebla

Were you answering my question? 'Cause I didn't get it if you were.

John from Ebla

October 20th 2005, 05:56 AM

Were you answering my question? 'Cause I didn't get it if you were.

Yes l was. l don’t see any difference between the two other than how one might perceives GOD (Spirit)

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 20th 2005, 06:48 AM

Hi John from Elba,

Who is in us- the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Scriptures support all and anyone one without distinction other than saying it is God, Christ or Spirit- they are treated as One.Romans 8 is enlightening. Vs11 says that it is the Spirit of God that dwells in us and vs 9 mentions 3 three differentiated spirits: the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

To me, the question is "In which way are the Father, Son and Spirit in us?" or more particularly "How do we fulfill Jesus' plea to the Father?" that 'they all may be one, as you Father are in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us'?" (John 17:21)

Possibly A.Paul gives a clue at 1 Cor 12:12-14. Or possibly there is an analogy in Genesis 2:24 where man and woman are spoken of as one flesh. Rom 12:5 offers some guidance: A.Paul says "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and all members of each other."

To say that we are all God is false, since in us is an influential spirit that leads us in grace and truth- not the Fullness of what God is.I agree!

No one, not even the Son of God can claim equality in all things with God the Father. Jesus went regularly pointed out that he had no power of his own and all things came from the Father. Even the Roman and eastern orthodox creeds teach that the Father is the source of all things. However, A.Paul taught that in Jesus, in the Son of man, dwells all the fullness of God bodily (Col 2:9). For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell (Col 1:19). To the Ephesians A.Paul revealed "know the love of Christ...that you might be filled with all the fullness of God (3:19). It is apparent that A.Paul believed that follows of Christ would take on the fullness of God. A.John makes the point "God is love, and he that dwells in love, dwells in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). So could it be, that the fullness of God is unreserved love?

The second commandment is “thy shall have no other gods” how can Jesus be another form of god?Ex 20:3 states that but the context is in the next two verses. Seems the Taliban are the only group that obeys the commandments to the letter :-)

The curiously is that YHWH said to Moses "you shall be to [Aaron] instead of God" (Exodus 4:16). Then at Ex 7:1 we have YHWH saying to Moses "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" It is not for me to counter YHWH and his want to make people gods. Jesus quoted Ps 82:6 to the Pharisees (John 10:34) showing that God has appointed men as temporary gods. The significance is not in the title. Anyone with power over your life and/or death is conceptually god while that power exists. YHWH defines himself this way at Ex 32:39. According to A.Paul, the Father has subjected all things unto the Son, but only for a time (1 Cor 15:24-28) just as occurred with the judges of Israel.

Do you perceive God as a puppet outside the universe?A peculiar thought - a puppet has no self identity, will or auto-motion. I believe God is our Father, fully self motivated in his love for his creation and as Father, stern but fully approachable.

the spirit of God is (the essence, substance of what God is)A.John relates that Jesus revealed to the Samaritan woman that "God is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth" (Jn 4:24) A.John also tells us that "God is love" (1Jn4:16). To me the substantiality of God the Father is in his qualities, which the Son of God made manifest and we are suppose to emulate.

what makes the son the same GOD not another different god. The father and Son are the one God Spirit.Hmm. The scriptures do teach that a man and woman are meant to be one flesh and believers in Christ are meant to be one body, I'd suggest that this is reference to the individual's spirit being in harmony with another. Rom 8:16 says the "Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit". Given that the Father and Son are shown in scripture to be in total unity (of the same spirit) I can go along with they are one God Spirit but as the scriptures plainly differentiate between the Son and the Father and plainly teach the individuality of the Son and the Father, it is my understanding that there is a Godhead (a kingdom) in which for a time the Father (king) has granted his Son (the prince) dominion over all things. (! Cor 15:24-28).

John from Ebla

October 20th 2005, 07:04 AM

A peculiar thought - a puppet has no self identity, will or auto-motion. I believe God is our Father, fully self motivated in his love for his creation and as Father, stern but fully approachable.

A.John relates that Jesus revealed to the Samaritan woman that "God is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth" (Jn 4:24) A.John also tells us that "God is love" (1Jn4:16). To me the substantiality of God the Father is in his qualities, which the Son of God made manifest and we are suppose to emulate.

Hmm. The scriptures do teach that a man and woman are meant to be one flesh and believers in Christ are meant to be one body, I'd suggest that this is reference to the individual's spirit being in harmony with another. Rom 8:16 says the "Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit". Given that the Father and Son are shown in scripture to be in total unity (of the same spirit) I can go along with they are one God Spirit but as the scriptures plainly differentiate between the Son and the Father and plainly teach the individuality of the Son and the Father, it is my understanding that there is a Godhead (a kingdom) in which for a time the Father (king) has granted his Son (the prince) dominion over all things. (! Cor 15:24-28).

Good, l don't see a problem

Jesus is the the Lord God of the O/T incarnated- when Paul said "God was in Christ' he did mean the Father was the one that died on the cross, he new the O/T he new the Lord God of the old testament as per the sciptures. John 1-1-3,14

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 20th 2005, 07:32 AM

Hi Sparko,

I haven't time for a full reply just now, but I will get back to your comments.

don't you mean: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ? That's what my bible has.
In a spanish bible you'd read senor. The Gr is Kyrios=sir, owner, master, lord or even king. The NT consistently teaches that Jesus Christ is our King=Master=Lord. It also teaches that he has purchased us through his blood, so that makes him own owner.

And while on the subject of greetings as proof texts...2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13{/QUOTE]You left out a couple :-)

But we all know these are disputed texts not well supported by the mss.

In terms of A.Paul's salutations, it does show he was very consistent in his doctrines throughout all his letters. 1 Cor 15:15 says "we have testified of God that he raised up Christ" A little before A.Pauls telss us that "to us there is one God the Father of whom are all things" (1 Cor 8:6). The only person A.Paul consistently refers to as God is the Father of Jesus Christ.

[QUOTE=Sparko]Anti-trinitarians like to divide and conquer.Novation was/is considered very catholic orthodox. Should you read him you might find an understanding of my opinion.

They want to isolate each place that Jesus is called God and try to explain it away and think that ends it.There are so very few of them and only one that has undisputed mss support (Jn 1:1).

But the overwhelming amount of evidence is that Jesus was God.If so the issue would have been settled at least 1900 years ago.

You need to take it all in together. Sure one verse here or there could be 'misread' by trinitarians, but when it shows up as a theme throughout the bible and new testament, then you need to sit back and take notice. To ignore the totality of the evidence is being intellectually dishonest.Guess you never read Athanasius who is the most famous of trinitarians. Augustine, in the 5th century evolved the idea of the immanent trinity (as is commonly taught), negating the economic trinity which the first three centuries of Christians acknowledged. Interestingly, Augustine is only accepted by the Papal churches and their schismatics. Eastern Orthodox have a complete different view of things. Interestingly Augustine, Aquinas et al based their views on philosophy not scripture.

John chapter 1 goes to great lengths to say that Jesus is the Word become flesh and that the Word is GOD. If he didn't mean to imply that, then John would not have even bothered to write that chapter. There is no other reason for it. It says Jesus is the Word, the word is God, the Word became flesh, the Word is the Creator of all things.The NEB renders "the Word was God" as "what God was the word was" which is suppose to be closer to the understanding proffered in the original Greek. Most scholars seem to agree that the common rendering doesn't convey the meaning of the Greek. Now you might say but it is saying the same thing, but it isn't. If it said what you want it to say John 20:31 would conclude most differently.

Colossians 1:16 says the same thing and makes sure you know it is talking about Jesus being the creator. Again, if he is NOT God, then what is the purpose of such verses that imply that he IS? To confuse?I find Colossians most clear. vs14 the Son is the image of the invisible God. vs18. God wanted him to have pre-eminence in all things. vs19. "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell."

Sorry got to go. Later....

apostoli

October 20th 2005, 09:44 AM

Hi again Sparko,

John also goes to great lengths to show that John the baptist was the one who proclaimed the coming of Jesus and was the one crying out in the desert. Looking back at Isaiah who do we see as the prophet proclaiming to come??? YHWH himself! Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. So who is John the baptist proclaiming? YHWH! Who came? JESUS. You do the math.Guess you ain't good at maths. Read John 1:21-27. What was the Jewish expectation? Now vs29, who did JB say Jesus was? Now v34. Again, who did JB say Jesus was? Now consider vs30. Flash forward to 10:24, then John's conclusion 20:31 "These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" John went to great efforts to state plainly and simply who and what Jesus is!

Thomas called him God directly too. John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"I'll pay that one but what puzzles me is why two verses later (vs31) John didn't say "these things are written so that you may believe Jesus is God."

God the Father even calls Jesus God! Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.I'll pay that one too (despite the mss evidence against that rendering). And give you a tick for including vs9, which clearly shows the God on the throne has a God who is superior to him. (compare Jn 20:17).

Now I know your plan will be to try to single out each verse and try to come up with some alternate meaning but If you have read any of my detailed posts generally I never use isolated scriptures. I look for consistency in the message.

I am telling the readers to DO THE MATH.I encourage the readers to study the text and seek out the consistent theme of scripture.

The sheer volume of evidence that Jesus is God is overwhelming in the bible.Son of God yes. Absolute God, I'd like to view your evidence.

I have but touched the tip of the iceberg in this post.I look forward to your future posts.

The overwhelming evidence is that Jesus IS God.Philosophically I couldn't agree more but scripturally the evidence is scanty.

Contemplate Heb 3:1-2. YHWH also made Moses to be God, first to Aaron then to Pharoah (Ex 4:16, 7:1) but as Jesus was pre-exitant and directly of God he has a particular claim, as God has subjected all things unto him.

A.Paul might be construed as suggesting that if Jesus is God, then he cannot be the Christ. At 2 Cor 5:19 he plainly says "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" And at 1 Cor 8:6 he plainly says "to us there is but one God the Father" and at Ephesians 4:6 he says "[there is] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". The overwhelming evidence of scripture is there is one God the Father and the Christ Jesus is the Son of God. As the Nicene creed states We believe there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, God from God...

themuzicman

October 20th 2005, 10:22 AM

John 1:1-18 is what is called a Chiastic structure. It is common in Hebrew literature, especially the bible. You'll note that each pair of sections that are indented the same amount are related. This is intentional:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.

7 He came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but [came] that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

16 For of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him.]

While this isn't an exact duplication of Jaltus' work, he is at least the inspiration for this structure, since I first saw it in his (since deleted) thread on John 1:1-18, so I thought I ought to give him credit, here.

Now the verses we're concerned with are 1-3 and 18.

First, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Genesis 1:1, where GOD (YHWH) created the heavens and the earth. In it's context, there is simply no other way to understand Genesis 1:1, and John is drawing from that reference, here.

What was in the beginning "The Word". John repeats TWICE that the Word was WITH God in the beginning, and then idenfies the Word as YHWH, the creator in verse 3!

Thus, we have seemingly contradictory statements, in that the Word IS YHWH, the creator, who was in the beginning, creating the heavens and the earth, and yet, the Word was WITH God in the beginning.

If you'll accept a structure within a structure, we have:

In the beginning (clear reference to YHWH createing heavens/earth)
Word With God
Word WAS God
Word in beginning with God
World created through Him, nothing made that was made.

Again the first and last are DIRECTLY RELATED because of the structure, here, and the center of the structure is what the author is driving at: God was Word, yet that is surrounded by a separation of some kind, because God was with God.

And that brings us to verse 18. No one has seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father. Again, we have identification as the only God, and yet presence with God.

The Word cannot be created, because the Word cannot create Himself (verse 3), nor can God be created, ecause the Word, indeed, cannot be separated from God's existance, because the Word IS God (v1, v18).

Thus, when we see the structure of John 1:1-18, and what John is clearly trying to communicate to us, there is no other picture that can be drawn other than that relationship between God the Father and God the Son in the doctrine of the trinity!

John DID state that Jesus is the one and only God in bold letters and Neon colors. We simply must become the audience that John was writing to in order to grasp it.

Michael

John from Ebla

October 20th 2005, 10:43 AM

,

A.Paul might be construed as suggesting that if Jesus is God, then he cannot be the Christ. At 2 Cor 5:19 he plainly says "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" And at 1 Cor 8:6 he plainly says "to us there is but one God the Father" and at Ephesians 4:6 he says "[there is] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". The overwhelming evidence of scripture is there is one God the Father and the Christ Jesus is the Son of God. As the Nicene creed states We believe there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, God from God...

Yes he can: Peter say's God has made Jesus (the man the Jews killed) both LORD and Christ (anointed messiah) Acts 2:36

The Lord God of the O/T, the Word of God that said to Moses "l am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" became flesh- incarnated. (The Lord through whom all things are 1Cor 8:6- let us make man in our image Genesis 1:26)

Jesus said: Restore me to the glory l had with you before (John 17:5) and the father did just that. The Lord God of the O/T never had a human body- he was the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, but he was not a messiah until he became Flesh (man), and, this man (Jesus) by virtue of the spirit in him (Hew 9:14) was pure and holy- to redeem a world of sinners. When this spirit was risen with the body he incarnated, Peter was letting Israel know- The Jesus you rejected, the father has made Both “LORD” (restored to what he had before John 17:5) and “Christ” anointed messiah)

So as Pual said: One God, Father who is the source of all things and One Lord, Jesus, Christ (God Man Messiah) through whom all things are.. How many creators do you have? Two- l only have One- because they are ONE GOD>

Kind regards
John From Ebla

andiwashere

October 20th 2005, 01:47 PM

John of Ebla, from the Intro thread....

Hi,

l Undestand Ancient Israel started to follow pagan monotheisms by sacrificing humans just like the nations around them: “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal- to which God said "I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) (Jer. 7:30-31) (2 Kgs. 21:6, 2 Chron. 33:6) (2 Kgs. 16:1-3)

So, if human sacrfice was never part of Gods mind or plan, could this be the very reason why Jesus had to be God in the flesh.It could be true in light of what is written in 1 Cor 1:23-24. (A God crucifed is nonsense and absurd to those outside of Christianity)

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

I do believe you are right, that human sacrifices were detestable to God and contrary to His law. But the death of Jesus was not a sacrifice like any other. Nobody murdered Jesus thinking, 'here is my sacrifice God, please remit my sins now'. It was not a sacrifice committed by men, it was a murder committed by men.

That God chose to accept the murder, as his own sacrifice for humanity, was only symbolic. Seeing Jesus as a man, does not mean that God broke his own law. And, I think human understanding was/is sufficient to see the difference. (Not that I think Jesus was merely man - but still, in this regard, he could have been).

Anyways, I do appreciate your efforts in helping me understand. This whole thread has been incredibly enlightening!

Cheers,
Andi

John from Ebla

October 20th 2005, 10:53 PM

John of Ebla, from the Intro thread....

I do believe you are right, that human sacrifices were detestable to God and contrary to His law. But the death of Jesus was not a sacrifice like any other. Nobody murdered Jesus thinking, 'here is my sacrifice God, please remit my sins now'. It was not a sacrifice committed by men, it was a murder committed by men.

That God chose to accept the murder, as his own sacrifice for humanity, was only symbolic. Seeing Jesus as a man, does not mean that God broke his own law. And, I think human understanding was/is sufficient to see the difference. (Not that I think Jesus was merely man - but still, in this regard, he could have been).

Anyways, I do appreciate your efforts in helping me understand. This whole thread has been incredibly enlightening!

Cheers,
Andi

Ok, you have a spirit of discussion so l am willing to carry on with this.

Remember. The whole of the O/T is about spilling of blood, nothing was done without the spilling of blood- one lamb after another- in fact the temple's in Jerusalem was constructed specifically in an architecture that facilitated the slaughter of lambs and cattle and birds. Then when Moses put the written laws before Israel- Aaron sprinkled the book/ scroll with blood- then he ratified the agreement Israel made with GOD

Consider the Jews were always taught that sin required a sacrificial atonement, thus was purpose of that lamb, price had to be paid for sin- but these mere animals did not perfect human nature (Hebrew9:9) – in fact read the whole chapter and see that Jesus is as sacrificial Lamb- a price paid for sin..

John 10:17 For this the father loves me, because l lay down my life to take it back again. Just like a lamb to the slaughter, he did not resist. Then John 1:29 “ the Lamb away the sin.

I think it is as l said – How could the father have done what never came to his mind. “Human sacrifice” It is for this reason many Jews spit on the name of Jesus, find it absurd, and a stone of stumbling. But if Jesus is the holy one of Israel, the logos that said to Moses “ l am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” then there is a difference.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 21st 2005, 10:56 PM

Hi John From Ebla,

when Paul said "God was in Christ' he did mean the Father was the one that died on the crossI'm trying to understand your remark. To date I've never given oneness theology much thought so please bear with me while I try to understand your view and please correct where I've misunderstood the oneness teaching/s I've read on the net. In oneness belief the Father is immanent, eternally residing in the heavens, and in time emanated himself into flesh (as in light from light) to become Jesus, who is Son of God in regards to his humanity. So in tangibility, and in regards to his humanity, there was when the Son was not but as the Word he has eternally pre-existed in potentiality within God, who emanates his Word from time to time in his self revelation to his creation. So Jesus, having God fully indwelling in him and being fully man, being sustained by the Father (as in light from light), it can be said that the incarnated Father died on the cross. Is that close?

Must admit, it is quite a tidy explanation of how Jesus is God, the hypostatic union and even accords with that he was resurrected, ascended and sits on the right hand side of God. Though it does seem to present a problem with there being two individuals: one being absolute God the source of all things and the other simultaneously being fully absolute God and fully man. But if as you stated in another post "The father and Son are the one God Spirit" and as I replied "Given that the Father and Son are shown in scripture to be in total unity (of the same spirit) I can go along with that". Although I do see it as heading towards a trinity=tri-equal explanation as opposed to a tri-unity view of things. To some extent I think our thinking is similar. Most differences being in the fine print :-]

Just thinking aloud. Your observations are welcome...

Since A.John related that the Father was in the Son, and the Son was in the Father, I guess in a sense you might say on this evidence both died. However, from Mt 27:46 one gets the impression that the Father was not indwelling some time before Jesus expired. So logically only his humanity died on the cross. Given, sin entered the world through one man, and it was necessary for a perfect man to die for our atonement, and scripture clearly speaks of and distinguishes between the Spirit of God (which dwells) and the Spirit of Christ (his natural human spirit) then the sacrifice would be valid as the man died in his entirety. That is tidy also and (except for your post) would resolve the issue of did God die.

I'm assuming you accept the orthodoxy definition of Jesus as a type of hybrid (God+man=Jesus), and God did not simply indwell in Christ but apart from his spirituality was a component of his physicality. Given that, if Jesus only died in his humanity his sacrifice would be invalid, as it would have been imperfect. That is: As God/man, he needed to die as God/man.

Jesus is the Lord God of the O/T incarnatedIn Acts 3:13-18 A.Peter clearly identifies the God of the OT as having "glorified his Son, Jesus" whom the Jews killed, which seems to differentiate the two. So YHWH is the Father and Jesus the Son. Thus they are two individualities in their temporal existence but one in their spiritual existence.

I'm honestly interested in understanding your views and having a fruitful discussion.

All the best.

andiwashere

October 22nd 2005, 12:09 AM

Remember. The whole of the O/T is about spilling of blood
I prefer to think the whole of the OT is about history, Gods Wisdom, and human nature. But, ok.

Consider the Jews were always taught that sin required a sacrificial atonement
The Law was not arbitrary. There was a wisdom and logic to it. Men were sacrificing other men, along with animals, since the earliest of times (It seems, before Eber). Gods Law, given to Noah, established the importance of man over beast. Later Law, given to Moses, clarified and made the animal sacrifices more legalistic and cumbersome.

but these mere animals did not perfect human nature
No, but they could have. If God had made his law different, which he could have, he could have made a feather king and a lion float. In His wisdom, God allowed mans sacrifices, made with a circumcised heart, to atone for past sins. In His wisdom, God restricted these sacrifices to animals.

..“Human sacrifice” It is for this reason many Jews spit on the name of Jesus, find it absurd, and a stone of stumbling.
That's one way to see it. But I think it is more consistent with Jewish theology, that the crucifixion of the 'anointed Messiah' was a stumbling block. Not because He was a sacrifice, but because he was killed at all.

I think it is as l said – How could the father have done what never came to his mind.
Of course, he couldn't. The Law was upon sinners. As a sinner, you could not sacrifice other humans as payment for your debt of sin. This is not what humans, Jesus, or God did in the case of Jesus' sacrifice (even if we consider Jesus to be mere human).

John 10:17 For this the father loves me, because l lay down my life to take it back again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself...

This is not the definition of 'sacrifice' per the OT. Nor, was it ever against Gods law to 'lay your own life down', for another man.

If I perceive that Jesus was more then man and less then God, and that God chose, in his wisdom, to accept the death of Jesus as a payment for my sins...I really cannot find any logical argument against myself.

Ok, you have a spirit of discussion so l am willing to carry on with this.
I appreciate that. BTW, are you really from Ebla, Syria?

Cheers,
Andi

andiwashere

October 22nd 2005, 01:35 AM

Apostoli, if you would allow me an extract from your extract...

Again, if I may share: consider the original Athanasius view, an extract from his statement of faith:
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2021.HTM#TopOfPage
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2022.HTM...For ...like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, `I came out from the Father and am come' (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, `I was by Him as one setting in order'...

Perhaps I am off subject...but I am reminded of Gen 1. In Gen 1, most creative and seperational acts are said to be 'good'. Creation of light, gathering of water and appearance of land, vegetation, heavenly bodies, fish, birds, land beasts...all are said to be 'good'. And the final, whole creation, is said to be 'very good'.

Besides the first creation act of 'heavens and earth', there are two notable creation acts that lack the 'good' stamp of approval. They are...

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

...and...

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....Gen 1:30...and it was so

Now maybe it's a stretch, but after some time, I decided the, 'it was so' disclaimer to have logic. In both examples (firmament and humanity) there is a division of 'one'. With the creation of the firmament, water is separated. With the creation of man, male and female are separated.

If we look at the properties of water, we see that water seeks water. Evaporation and precipitation. High Polarity and surface tension. Hydrogen bonding and cohesion. Water has a natural tendency to seek, and bond with, water. The way a rain drop falls, runs down your windshield, turns quickly, finds the other rain drop, and the two reform into one. It's as if...water really belongs with water.

Draw whatever parallel you want, with man being separated into male and female..

"the original Athanasius view....'as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son without flow and without division...'."

It's as if...water was never separated and still exists as 'one'.

alam

October 22nd 2005, 04:10 AM

Hi Guys,

Apostoli! Good to see you back. :-)

I am reading the thread after a couple days offline.

John from Ebla

October 22nd 2005, 04:51 AM

Hi John From Ebla,

I'm trying to understand your remark. To date I've never given oneness theology much thought so please bear with me while I try to understand your view and please correct where I've misunderstood the oneness teaching/s I've read on the net. In oneness belief the Father is immanent, eternally residing in the heavens, and in time emanated himself into flesh (as in light from light) to become Jesus, who is Son of God in regards to his humanity. So in tangibility, and in regards to his humanity, there was when the Son was not but as the Word he has eternally pre-existed in potentiality within God, who emanates his Word from time to time in his self revelation to his creation. So Jesus, having God fully indwelling in him and being fully man, being sustained by the Father (as in light from light), it can be said that the incarnated Father died on the cross. Is that close?

Must admit, it is quite a tidy explanation of how Jesus is God, the hypostatic union and even accords with that he was resurrected, ascended and sits on the right hand side of God. Though it does seem to present a problem with there being two individuals: one being absolute God the source of all things and the other simultaneously being fully absolute God and fully man. But if as you stated in another post "The father and Son are the one God Spirit" and as I replied "Given that the Father and Son are shown in scripture to be in total unity (of the same spirit) I can go along with that". Although I do see it as heading towards a trinity=tri-equal explanation as opposed to a tri-unity view of things. To some extent I think our thinking is similar. Most differences being in the fine print :-]

Just thinking aloud. Your observations are welcome...

Since A.John related that the Father was in the Son, and the Son was in the Father, I guess in a sense you might say on this evidence both died. However, from Mt 27:46 one gets the impression that the Father was not indwelling some time before Jesus expired. So logically only his humanity died on the cross. Given, sin entered the world through one man, and it was necessary for a perfect man to die for our atonement, and scripture clearly speaks of and distinguishes between the Spirit of God (which dwells) and the Spirit of Christ (his natural human spirit) then the sacrifice would be valid as the man died in his entirety. That is tidy also and (except for your post) would resolve the issue of did God die.

I'm assuming you accept the orthodoxy definition of Jesus as a type of hybrid (God+man=Jesus), and God did not simply indwell in Christ but apart from his spirituality was a component of his physicality. Given that, if Jesus only died in his humanity his sacrifice would be invalid, as it would have been imperfect. That is: As God/man, he needed to die as God/man.

In Acts 3:13-18 A.Peter clearly identifies the God of the OT as having "glorified his Son, Jesus" whom the Jews killed, which seems to differentiate the two. So YHWH is the Father and Jesus the Son. Thus they are two individualities in their temporal existence but one in their spiritual existence.

I'm honestly interested in understanding your views and having a fruitful discussion.

All the best.

Regarding death. The purpose of sacrifice is’ “Blood” not death or murder. Jesus died like all people- the flesh dies while the spirit cannot be killed, it just returns to it's maker(Eccle 12:7)- people have a 'spirit of man"(Prv.18:14) , while in Jesus was God Spirit (Heb.9:14) (Peter1:11)

In Acts 3:13-18 A.Peter identifies Jesus the man, servant-not the spirit in him. Read Peter 1:11- the spirit of Chirst was working within the prophets of old, this spirit was the God of the O/T, this spirit was moving upon the face of the earth (Gen 1:2) this spirit was with the Father when they spoke. " let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26) this spirit was in visable form when in Gen 19-24, " The Lord God rained on Sodom and Gomarrah brinestone and fire from the Lord God out of heaven" (There is no distinction in, Gen 1:26 and Gen 19-24, other than plurality) So Yes, the God of Abraham is only one God (sundstance) but with distinction- Father and Son and can apply to both- as does Lord and as does God in 1 Cor 8:6 , one is one for both.

This spirit of God came in the womb of Mary, why would it not be the father of Jesus the man if this spirit is one substance with the Father especially in light of (Gen 1:26 Gen 19-24) No distinction was made other than one was on earth and one in heaven. If it is a different spirit (substance essence) it would be a different God.

Consider ISA 9:6 " everlasting Father"
Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." (Ex 4:22) If Isaiah 9:6 indicates that His people will call the Messiah "The everlasting Father," He is the One LORD GOD (Substance) How many Fathers can a son have? Malachi 2:10 Don't we all have one Father.

The eternal spirit (Heb.9:14) is one but distinct, as sciptures show individualities. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, but they are one in each other as the gospel of John put's it.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 22nd 2005, 07:24 AM

I'm assuming you accept the orthodoxy definition of Jesus as a type of hybrid (God+man=Jesus), and God did not simply indwell in Christ but apart from his spirituality was a component of his physicality. Given that, if Jesus only died in his humanity his sacrifice would be invalid, as it would have been imperfect. That is: As God/man, he needed to die as God/man.

Just to add to what you said above. Consider John 1:14 and the word the writer uses 'Tabernacled" as if he fixed his tent and dwelt amongst them- Isa 7:14 " Immanuel" God with US- a temporal existence

When the body died, the temporal existence- tent for the spirit (Heb.9:14) has ended- he was resurrected once again to his original glory (John17:5) not with a mortal body but with an immortal body- He is Lord and Christ ( Christ= anointed one = messiah)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 23rd 2005, 12:32 AM

Hi andiwashere,

Perhaps I am off subject...but I am reminded of Gen 1. In Gen 1, most creative and seperational acts are said to be 'good'. Creation of light, gathering of water and appearance of land, vegetation, heavenly bodies, fish, birds, land beasts...all are said to be 'good'. And the final, whole creation, is said to be 'very good'. Besides the first creation act of 'heavens and earth', there are two notable creation acts that lack the 'good' stamp of approval...Now maybe it's a stretch, but after some time, I decided the, 'it was so' disclaimer to have logic. In both examples (firmament and humanity) there is a division of 'one'. With the creation of the firmament, water is separated. With the creation of man, male and female are separated.Actually, the first "it was good" doesn't occur until Gen 1:10 and this refers to the third day of creation when dry land and seas are made. The first instance of "it was so" comes in the second day (vs7) and next on the 6th day where it is applied to everything on dry land (vs24, but vs25 then says "God saw that it was good").

Now maybe it's a stretch, but after some time, I decided the, 'it was so' disclaimer to have logic. In both examples (firmament and humanity) there is a division of 'one'. With the creation of the firmament, water is separated. With the creation of man, male and female are separated.If we have a think about it there is no isolation in the seperation. With the waters we have evaporation and percipitation that keeps them in unity (the water cycle). Likewise, (Given Gen 2:24) there is no seperation between man and woman because they are meant to act as one flesh.

If we look at the properties of water, we see that water seeks water. Evaporation and precipitation. High Polarity and surface tension. Hydrogen bonding and cohesion. Water has a natural tendency to seek, and bond with, water. The way a rain drop falls, runs down your windshield, turns quickly, finds the other rain drop, and the two reform into one. It's as if...water really belongs with water. Draw whatever parallel you want, with man being separated into male and female..Your analogy of the water drop is most apt and in God's plan applies to man & woman, who, as already suggested are according to Gen 2:24 suppose to act as one flesh.

"the original Athanasius view....'as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son without flow and without division...'." It's as if...water was never separated and still exists as 'one'.Not sure what you are trying to convey. Athanasius was simply making the point that the Father is not the Son (and visa versa), the Son sources his existence from the Father (eg: as a river from a well) and is of the same essentiality. And as a river cannot be seperated from its source, the Son although distinguishable from the Father has his own individual characteristics.

andiwashere

October 23rd 2005, 04:39 AM

Hey Apostoli, thanks for the reply.

Actually, the first "it was good" doesn't occur until Gen 1:10...
Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

I only mention this to demonstrate that all of creation was said to be 'good', with the exceptions of heavens/earth, firmament, and man (due, I think, to inherent separations).

...and this refers to the third day of creation when dry land and seas are made.
Gen 1:9-10 "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good."

It looks, to me, like Gen 1:9 is not when dry land was 'made' (that would be in Gen 1:1). I have always taken this verse to mean that dry land arose from beneath the waters, and 'appeared'. Also, I don't consider verse 9 to represent the 'making of seas'. Rather, the water was gathered to one place, one sea, surrounding one body of land that did appear from beneath.

To think otherwise (that multiple seas were made) would interrupt my musings. :teeth:

The first instance of "it was so" comes in the second day (vs7)...
Right, when the firmament was created, separating waters.

and next on the 6th day where it is applied to everything on dry land (vs24,... ").
Right, everything on dry land, including humans (which were separated).

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

but vs25 then says "God saw that it was good").
Right, everything on dry land, except humans.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

If we have a think about it there is no isolation in the seperation.
:smile:

With the waters we have evaporation and percipitation that keeps them in unity (the water cycle). Likewise, (Given Gen 2:24) there is no seperation between man and woman because they are meant to act as one flesh.
Apostoli, with all respect, male and female rarely act as one flesh. Moments of unity fade away with the pressures of this life. Just because we are meant to act as one flesh...does not mean we do act as one flesh. We are born separate, we spend our formative years separate, we unite on paper, and then struggle to remain 'separate but equal'. While the wisdom of God is unquestionable, sometimes I have to ask...did God know the trouble he was creating?

If water passes water in the atmosphere, one molecule going up and the other going down, I don't think you can safely say "water is united". When there is a lot of this water escalator activity...look out!

Your analogy of the water drop is most apt.
Why, thank you. :blush:

and in God's plan applies to man & woman, who, as already suggested are according to Gen 2:24 suppose to act as one flesh.
Yes, and as with water, our efforts are continually thwarted by the pressures of this world.

Not sure what you are trying to convey..
Just musings, mostly. But, after this post, I'm thinking of turning my musings into a working theory...:whistle:

Athanasius was simply making the point that the Father is not the Son (and visa versa), the Son sources his existence from the Father (eg: as a river from a well) and is of the same essentiality. And as a river cannot be seperated from its source, the Son although distinguishable from the Father has his own individual characteristics.
Hey, to tell you the truth, I'm lost in this whole Father, Son, Holy Spirit thing. But, with my new working theory, I hope to gain some insight.

I guess I'm thinking of the Holy Spirit as water (like, really special water). And, Jesus as having a direct pipeline to the water source. And, us sinners, as having taken an axe to our own pipelines, thereby separating ourselves. But, whatever remnants of water we have remaining, keep calling us back to the Source (as water/humans seek to reunite - so our spirits seek to reunite).

I know, within myself, that the Genesis distinction, from above, has meaning. It's as clear as the birthmark on my daughters backside. Whenever 'one' is separated it causes conflict and a yearning to reunite. My struggle is to understand that truth within the context of Jesus and His nature.

Thanks for helping!
Andi

John from Ebla

October 23rd 2005, 06:00 AM

I prefer to think the whole of the OT is about history, Gods Wisdom, and human nature. But, ok.

The Law was not arbitrary. There was a wisdom and logic to it. Men were sacrificing other men, along with animals, since the earliest of times (It seems, before Eber). Gods Law, given to Noah, established the importance of man over beast. Later Law, given to Moses, clarified and made the animal sacrifices more legalistic and cumbersome.

No, but they could have. If God had made his law different, which he could have, he could have made a feather king and a lion float. In His wisdom, God allowed mans sacrifices, made with a circumcised heart, to atone for past sins. In His wisdom, God restricted these sacrifices to animals.

That's one way to see it. But I think it is more consistent with Jewish theology, that the crucifixion of the 'anointed Messiah' was a stumbling block. Not because He was a sacrifice, but because he was killed at all.

Of course, he couldn't. The Law was upon sinners. As a sinner, you could not sacrifice other humans as payment for your debt of sin. This is not what humans, Jesus, or God did in the case of Jesus' sacrifice (even if we consider Jesus to be mere human).

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself...

This is not the definition of 'sacrifice' per the OT. Nor, was it ever against Gods law to 'lay your own life down', for another man.

If I perceive that Jesus was more then man and less then God, and that God chose, in his wisdom, to accept the death of Jesus as a payment for my sins...I really cannot find any logical argument against myself.

I appreciate that. BTW, are you really from Ebla, Syria?

Cheers,
Andi

In Hebrew “Hebraic understanding” the bloodline is counted from the Father- The father of Jesus God (Spirit) not Joseph- you obviously don’t or did not consider Hebrew “Chapter 9”

Christ the Messiah went into the holy of holies not by virtue of the “blood of goat and calves” (Heb 9:12)- “For if the mere sprinkling of unholy and defiled person with blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of burnt heifer is sufficient for the purification of the body” Verse 13
(Lev 16:6,16 Num.19:9,17-18) “How much more the blood of Christ who by virtue of his eternal spirit has offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God”

Anyway, No, l am not from Ebla (l am from much further north east of Ebla) When l registered it did not allow me to use John because of other users. You can quote JKE if you want :smile:

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 24th 2005, 02:03 AM

Hi John From Ebla,

I've skipped two of your short posts. Not to avoid them but from lack of time to reply to them directly and because I think we will cover the same ground from different perspectives as our conversation continues :-]

Regarding death. The purpose of sacrifice is’ “Blood” not death or murder.As Lev 17:11 says "for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul" I agree that the significance of the sacrifice is in the blood. But the sacrifice required the death of the thing sacrificed for as Lev 17:11 also says "the life of the flesh is in the blood." The Mosiac practice wasn't to partially bleed (as is/was the practice in some cultures) but to bleed the animal to death. That is: kill it! It died and was offered in completeness and we mustn't forget that for the sacrifice to be acceptable it had to be perfect and complete.

The Jews/Romans on face value appear to have killed Jesus but scripture shows that they were just used as the tools, for Christ willingly laid down his life for us. As both High Priest and sacrificial lamb, scripture shows it was Jesus who made the offering of himself for our atonement through his blood.

Another point, though the ten commandments say "thy shalt not murder" the Levitical laws demand that, what we today call murder, a range of felonies. One of which was to kill anyone who blasphemes God. This was the perception of Jesus, of the Jewish leaders and they wouldn't have perceived it murder to kill him, being righteous in their Law.

Jesus died like all people- the flesh dies while the spirit cannot be killed, it just returns to it's maker(Eccle 12:7)I want to avoid going off on a tangent but I need to state that I believe that man dies body+soul with the gift of life returning to God who gave it, and the faithful will be resurrected body+soul at the second coming. That said...

You are probably aware that the NEB and others note that the word translated "spirit" at Eccl 12:7 could also be translated "breath". Eccl 3:19-20 is of interest as it says of man and beast "all have one breath...All go unto one place, all are of the dust and all turn to dust again" and then in vs21 we have the rhetorical question: "Who knows the spirit of [the sons of man**] that goes upward and the spirit of the beast that goes downward to the earth?" Zech 12:1 provides a clue "YHWH formed the spirit of man within him". My perception is that yes the Spirit of Man goes upward, to be written in either the book of life or judgment. Consider what Solomon went on to say at Eccl 3:22.

**The KJV simply says "of man" but Schofield Reference Bible notes that a literal translation is "of the sons of man".

people have a 'spirit of man"(Prv.18:14), while in Jesus was God Spirit (Heb.9:14) (Peter1:11)He must have had also the spirit of man or else he was not a man. Consider John 8:18 in the light of Rom 8:9 with 8:16.

In Acts 3:13-18 A.Peter identifies Jesus the man, servant-not the spirit in him.Agreed. Though it is a curiosity that Peter would say in vs16 that "through faith in [Jesus'] name,[I] have been made strong" and then avoid saying that God has come again to you in the flesh or at least alluded to it (eg: as with Jacob wrestling with God).

Read Peter 1:11- the spirit of Christ was working within the prophets of oldThe term Spirit of Christ only occurs twice in the NT: Rom 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11. Now Romans 8 makes a distinction between three Spirits: the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit (vs16) but it is the Spirit of God that dwells in us (vs9&11). Vs9 says "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,he is none of his". Phil 2:1-4, given vs5-8, seems to give an ample definition of the "Spirit of Christ"

this spirit was the God of the O/T, this spirit was moving upon the face of the earth (Gen 1:2) this spirit was with the Father when they spoke. "let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26) this spirit was in visible form when in Gen 19-24, "The Lord God rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord God out of heaven" (There is no distinction in, Gen 1:26 and Gen 19-24, other than plurality) So Yes, the God of Abraham is only one God (substance) but with distinction- Father and Son and can apply to both- as does Lord and as does God in 1 Cor 8:6 , one is one for both.Hmm. "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form (John 5:37)", given that, I accept completely that the instances of man seeing and hearing God in the OT, did not relate to the Father but another entity. Given Isa 43:10, we know by that entity's self witness "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Now given, John 20:17 we know Jesus ascended to his God and our God, his Father and our Father. So we seem to have an impasse. Novatian, Chapters 18 to 20 of his Treatise on the Trinity, provides some insight here.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

This spirit of God came in the womb of Mary, why would it not be the father of Jesus the man if this spirit is one substance with the Father especially in light of (Gen 1:26 Gen 19-24)Not sure what you are trying to convey. I believe that the Father begat the Logos, who became flesh and is called the Son of God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

As regards Jesus' conception Luke (1:35) relates "the Holy Spirit shall come upon [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow [her]; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." In his humanity, the Son is obviously of a different substance to the Father but in terms of his spirituality they must be presumed to be of the same essence.

No distinction was made other than one was on earth and one in heaven.Genesis 1 mentions only God and the Spirit of God. A definite distinction being implied. To be pointed there is no mention of the Spirit of God doing anything, other than moving upon the face of the waters. The first entity, called God (not the Spirit of God) is said to do everything. Just being pedantic: God couldn't have been in heaven as it wasn't created until the second day (Gen 1:7-8). As for the Spirit of God, it wasn't on earth as it hadn't been formed yet.

It is interesting to note that Gen 1:1 doesn't open with "the Gods" and if I recall properly it is the plural form of elohim used here. So it is most interesting to read that "God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Obviously, God was talking to someone. Now, Col 1:16 tells us that in regards to God's Son "all things were created by him, and for him...for it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell". 1 Cor 8:6 tells us that "there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things...and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" So we find a definite distinction between entities and roles, but only the Father is indentified as God.

The significance in the title "Kyrios=sir,owner,master,lord" is that Jesus is our owner, having purchased us through his blood, and master, in as much as God has subjected all things unto him.

If it is a different spirit (substance essence) it would be a different God.Actually, substance/essence doesn't define God/s. Even if two or more entities have the same substance/essence they can only be absolute God/s if they are without origin and are self sustaining. Orthodoxy attests that the Son subsists in the Father, and originates in the Father.

Consider ISA 9:6 " everlasting Father" Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." (Ex 4:22) If Isaiah 9:6 indicates that His people will call the Messiah "The everlasting Father," He is the One LORD GOD (Substance) How many Fathers can a son have? Malachi 2:10 Don't we all have one Father.Context is a marvelous thing. Jesus would be called everlasting Father, in the same way as Abraham and Moses are our spiritual fathers. In a biblical sense we each have many fathers, our biological father, our ancestral father/s, our spiritual fathers but ultimately there is one Father, God. Jesus went to pains to point this out. He did not say nor imply I am your Father but rather he pointed out his Father is our Father, his God is our God. (John 20:17). A.Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews (1:9) quoting Ps 45:6-7 says of Jesus "God, even thy God, has anointed thee".

The eternal spirit (Heb.9:14) is one but distinct, as scriptures show individualities. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, but they are one in each other as the gospel of John putt's it. I agree. And that same spirit of oneness has been offered to us by Jesus "And the glory which you gave me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one" Jn 17:22-23

John from Ebla

October 24th 2005, 02:38 AM

Hi John From Ebla,

I've skipped two of your short posts. Not to avoid them but from lack of time to reply to them directly and because I think we will cover the same ground from different perspectives as our conversation continues :-]

As Lev 17:11 says "for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul" I agree that the significance of the sacrifice is in the blood. But the sacrifice required the death of the thing sacrificed for as Lev 17:11 also says "the life of the flesh is in the blood." The Mosiac practice wasn't to partially bleed (as is/was the practice in some cultures) but to bleed the animal to death. That is: kill it! It died and was offered in completeness and we mustn't forget that for the sacrifice to be acceptable it had to be perfect and complete.

The Jews/Romans on face value appear to have killed Jesus but scripture shows that they were just used as the tools, for Christ willingly laid down his life for us. As both High Priest and sacrificial lamb, scripture shows it was Jesus who made the offering of himself for our atonement through his blood.

Another point, though the ten commandments say "thy shalt not murder" the Levitical laws demand that, what we today call murder, a range of felonies. One of which was to kill anyone who blasphemes God. This was the perception of Jesus, of the Jewish leaders and they wouldn't have perceived it murder to kill him, being righteous in their Law.

I want to avoid going off on a tangent but I need to state that I believe that man dies body+soul with the gift of life returning to God who gave it, and the faithful will be resurrected body+soul at the second coming. That said...

You are probably aware that the NEB and others note that the word translated "spirit" at Eccl 12:7 could also be translated "breath". Eccl 3:19-20 is of interest as it says of man and beast "all have one breath...All go unto one place, all are of the dust and all turn to dust again" and then in vs21 we have the rhetorical question: "Who knows the spirit of [the sons of man**] that goes upward and the spirit of the beast that goes downward to the earth?" Zech 12:1 provides a clue "YHWH formed the spirit of man within him". My perception is that yes the Spirit of Man goes upward, to be written in either the book of life or judgment. Consider what Solomon went on to say at Eccl 3:22.

**The KJV simply says "of man" but Schofield Reference Bible notes that a literal translation is "of the sons of man".

He must have had also the spirit of man or else he was not a man. Consider John 8:18 in the light of Rom 8:9 with 8:16.

Agreed. Though it is a curiosity that Peter would say in vs16 that "through faith in [Jesus'] name,[I] have been made strong" and then avoid saying that God has come again to you in the flesh or at least alluded to it (eg: as with Jacob wrestling with God).

The term Spirit of Christ only occurs twice in the NT: Rom 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11. Now Romans 8 makes a distinction between three Spirits: the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit (vs16) but it is the Spirit of God that dwells in us (vs9&11). Vs9 says "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,he is none of his". Phil 2:1-4, given vs5-8, seems to give an ample definition of the "Spirit of Christ"

Hmm. "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form (John 5:37)", given that, I accept completely that the instances of man seeing and hearing God in the OT, did not relate to the Father but another entity. Given Isa 43:10, we know by that entity's self witness "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Now given, John 20:17 we know Jesus ascended to his God and our God, his Father and our Father. So we seem to have an impasse. Novatian, Chapters 18 to 20 of his Treatise on the Trinity, provides some insight here.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

Not sure what you are trying to convey. I believe that the Father begat the Logos, who became flesh and is called the Son of God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

As regards Jesus' conception Luke (1:35) relates "the Holy Spirit shall come upon [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow [her]; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." In his humanity, the Son is obviously of a different substance to the Father but in terms of his spirituality they must be presumed to be of the same essence.

Genesis 1 mentions only God and the Spirit of God. A definite distinction being implied. To be pointed there is no mention of the Spirit of God doing anything, other than moving upon the face of the waters. The first entity, called God (not the Spirit of God) is said to do everything. Just being pedantic: God couldn't have been in heaven as it wasn't created until the second day (Gen 1:7-8). As for the Spirit of God, it wasn't on earth as it hadn't been formed yet.

It is interesting to note that Gen 1:1 doesn't open with "the Gods" and if I recall properly it is the plural form of elohim used here. So it is most interesting to read that "God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Obviously, God was talking to someone. Now, Col 1:16 tells us that in regards to God's Son "all things were created by him, and for him...for it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell". 1 Cor 8:6 tells us that "there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things...and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" So we find a definite distinction between entities and roles, but only the Father is indentified as God.

The significance in the title "Kyrios=sir,owner,master,lord" is that Jesus is our owner, having purchased us through his blood, and master, in as much as God has subjected all things unto him.

Actually, substance/essence doesn't define God/s. Even if two or more entities have the same substance/essence they can only be absolute God/s if they are without origin and are self sustaining. Orthodoxy attests that the Son subsists in the Father, and originates in the Father.

Context is a marvelous thing. Jesus would be called everlasting Father, in the same way as Abraham and Moses are our spiritual fathers. In a biblical sense we each have many fathers, our biological father, our ancestral father/s, our spiritual fathers but ultimately there is one Father, God. Jesus went to pains to point this out. He did not say nor imply I am your Father but rather he pointed out his Father is our Father, his God is our God. (John 20:17). A.Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews (1:9) quoting Ps 45:6-7 says of Jesus "God, even thy God, has anointed thee".

I agree. And that same spirit of oneness has been offered to us by Jesus "And the glory which you gave me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one" Jn 17:22-23

Well, l am not sure where you stand with your reply because l never said Jesus is the Father. He is the same spirit as the Father but he is the son- and no, we are not the Fullness of his spirit. :smile:

The Second point is- the Spirit that came in the womb of Mary did not bring fourth the logos, the logos existed as one with the Father Gen 19-24, " The Lord God rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord God out of heaven" (There is no distinction in Gen 19-24, other than plurality, but they are one spirit as Husband and wife are one Flesh, not a different kind of flesh, but two individuals)

Eternal spirit incarnated to became Flesh- The human Jesus that was Christ= anointed one= Messiah.

This is why it is written " Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26) they are one spirit. That One spirit is The creator God- The Father through his own word/logos/Lord (1Cor 8:6) :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 24th 2005, 03:02 AM

Hi andiwashere,

Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness."Must get new glasses. I missed vs 4 :-}

I only mention this to demonstrate that all of creation was said to be 'good', with the exceptions of heavens/earth, firmament, and man (due, I think, to inherent separations).I take your point but ultimately (as you pointed out previously) God decreed all of his creation "very good" including those things that had been seperated.

Gen 1:9-10 "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good."

It looks, to me, like Gen 1:9 is not when dry land was 'made' (that would be in Gen 1:1). I have always taken this verse to mean that dry land arose from beneath the waters, and 'appeared'.If the land was under the seas it wouldn't have been dry. :ahem: But I agree, that solid land was under the water and God either (or both) raised up the land or caused the waters to drop.

Also, I don't consider verse 9 to represent the 'making of seas'. Rather, the water was gathered to one place, one sea, surrounding one body of land that did appear from beneath. To think otherwise (that multiple seas were made) would interrupt my musings.Well the way I look at it, is there is only one sea/ocean. After all you can sail around the world without interuption if you want. Names we give things are just for our own perception. Bit like saying you live in Paris without mentioning Texas.

Apostoli, with all respect, male and female rarely act as one flesh. Moments of unity fade away with the pressures of this life. Just because we are meant to act as one flesh...does not mean we do act as one flesh. We are born separate, we spend our formative years separate, we unite on paper, and then struggle to remain 'separate but equal'. While the wisdom of God is unquestionable, sometimes I have to ask...did God know the trouble he was creating?Presume so. My ex-wife and I had our personality conflicts, but in at least one thing we remain and act as one, is in the care of our children, it has also kept us as good caring friends. Then again we got married in our teens, so the dependence thing, rather than the co-dependence thing was more of an issue. Reflecting on some of those who I've known, who have had successful marriages, unity seems to be achievable through discussion, negotiation and acknowledgement of circumstance (ie: from a male viewpoint, understanding the 28day cycle).

If water passes water in the atmosphere, one molecule going up and the other going down, I don't think you can safely say "water is united". When there is a lot of this water escalator activity...look out!Hot air rises carring water vapour up, as it condenses it becomes heavier, cooling the air, cold air falls and so it rains. From my experience, in the tropical summer, it rains everyday between 4-5pm cooling down the day, and its usually a short torential downpour.

as with water, our efforts are continually thwarted by the pressures of this world.Big issue with water is man keeps interfering with things - dams, weirs etc I figure God's plan was good but man keeps trying to change it to suit himself and stuffs things up.

Just musings, mostly. But, after this post, I'm thinking of turning my musings into a working theory.Musings are a good thing in my opinion. Muse away. You should write it up and publish, after all the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution are just musings of thinkers.

Hey, to tell you the truth, I'm lost in this whole Father, Son, Holy Spirit thing. But, with my new working theory, I hope to gain some insight.To me it is very simple. Then again I believe there is only one God the Father, Jesus is the Son of God and the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. I'm not convinced the Spirit is an entity as such, but is definitely something that works in us.

I guess I'm thinking of the Holy Spirit as water (like, really special water). And, Jesus as having a direct pipeline to the water source. And, us sinners, as having taken an axe to our own pipelines, thereby separating ourselves. But, whatever remnants of water we have remaining, keep calling us back to the Source (as water/humans seek to reunite - so our spirits seek to reunite).As far as anologies go, it makes sence. For whatever reason all mankind has some form of God consciousness and seem to be drawn to wanting interactivity with God. But I think what distinguishes Christianity with other religions, is we are drawn to seek a personal/direct relationship with God and we don't do it for personal gain but if we attain it, we want to share it.

I know, within myself, that the Genesis distinction, from above, has meaning. It's as clear as the birthmark on my daughters backside. Whenever 'one' is separated it causes conflict and a yearning to reunite. My struggle is to understand that truth within the context of Jesus and His nature.I have four sons, two have died and now the other two are grown, I don't see them "face to face" very often but I don't feel seperated from them. I can even say the same for my ex-wife. They all live in my heart, in my memories and in my thoughts.

As for conflict in seperation and yearning to reunite. I guess it comes down to a matter of priorities. If work seperates and there is no choice - one has to feed/clothe/house their family - there more care has to be taken with the minutes you get to share. If work seperates and there is a choice, bigger money vs living wage then priorities kick in. That is something I came to learn.

If seperation, say from your children because of conflict in marriage, then one has to make the choice to smooth the waters, so we take full advantage of the time we do get to share. Worked for me :ahem:

apostoli

October 24th 2005, 03:51 AM

Well, l am not sure where you stand with your replyI'll try to clarify: As I said in my last post - I believe that the Father begat the Logos, who became flesh and is called the Son of God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

I equate the Logos of Jn 1:1, with Jesus Christ. How the Father begat the Son is not revealed so I don't worry about it. I acknowledge the Son as he who revealed God in the OT. He that fought with Jacob etc. The angel of the Lord, angel in as much as he is/was the messenger of God but above the angels. As Novatian says, if an angel be called God, how much more should the Son of God be called God. But though all things have been subjected to the Son, the Son is subject to the Father and so there is only one true God, the Father.

The Son made God to us, but the Son has a God who he revealed to be our God.

Given John 5:37. I do not believe that Jesus is YHWH, but is that which the Israelites saw and heard and understood to be a representation of God calling him God, angel etc.

Basically I have an orthodox view.

because l never said Jesus is the Father.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.

He is the same spirit as the Father but he is the son- and no, we are not the Fullness of his spirit.But as A.Paul revealed "know the love of Christ...that you might be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph 3:19) and as John noted in a couple of places Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and the Father were one. The qualifier being God was in the Son, but Christ would be in us and through him we would be in the Father.

The Second point is- the Spirit that came in the womb of MaryMatthew says Mary "was found with child of the Holy Spirit" but as noted previously Luke says ""the Holy Spirit shall come upon [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow [her]" so it is speculative to suggest that the Spirit came into the womb of Mary. Modern science shows it is possible for spontaneous conception to occur in humans, but the prodigy would all be female. The miricle is that Mary gave birth to a Son.

Mary did not bring fourth the logos, the logos existed as one with the FatherA.John says that the Logos that was with God in the beginning became flesh. Not some spirit but the Logos itself, who is the only begotten Son of the Father (Jn 1:1,14,18).

Gen 19-24, " The Lord God rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord God out of heaven" (There is no distinction in Gen 19-24, other than plurality, but they are one spirit as Husband and wife are one Flesh, not a different kind of flesh, but two individuals)I'm sure you are aware that in middle-eastern thought a representative of say a king, is recognised as the king, with the same power and authority; without distinction. So YHWH raining brimstone etc, from YHWH out of heaven is not particularly revealing.

Eternal spirit incarnated to became Flesh- The human Jesus that was Christ= anointed one= Messiah.Except according to John, it wasn't the Spirit that was incarnated but the Logos, in whom the Spirit of God dwelt.

This is why it is written " Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26) they are one spirit. That One spirit is The creator God- The Father through his own word/logos/Lord (1Cor 8:6)Think we agree here :-)

John from Ebla

October 24th 2005, 05:40 AM

A.John says that the Logos that was with God in the beginning became flesh. Not some spirit but the Logos itself, who is the only begotten Son of the Father (Jn 1:1,14,18).

I'm sure you are aware that in middle-eastern thought a representative of say a king, is recognised as the king, with the same power and authority; without distinction. So YHWH raining brimstone etc, from YHWH out of heaven is not particularly revealing.

Except according to John, it wasn't the Spirit that was incarnated but the Logos, in whom the Spirit of God dwelt.

Think we agree here :-)

Yes, but John does not say the Logos was another form of god- this is the point of my discussion with you. :smile: Lets not go around pick nicking verses- l can say Jesus is the ' first and last' so he is God

Unless you can explain how a Spirit is in a Spirit, you are just blowing out words for the wind- scriptures say there is only “One Spirit” but you are saying the spirit of the Logos is not the same as the spirit of God- scriptures say it was God. John 1:1-3,14 :sigh:

The Logos was of the One Spirit not another so he is God not god (another) but he is not the Father. Gen 19-24, " The Lord God rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord God out of heaven" (There is no distinction in Gen 19-24, but they are one spirit as Husband and wife are one Flesh, not a different kind of flesh, but two individuals)

Bob Smiths (Father) has a (son) Jim Smith he is still a Smith and the same kind of flesh, not a different kind- but he is not his Father. Why is the case of the logos you make it a different kind of god and not God. They are the same kind of spirit. The Love of Christ is the Love of the Father- the same spirit as the Father because the Logos in him was the fullness of God. John 1:1-3,14

Kind regards
John From Ebla :wink:

themuzicman

October 24th 2005, 07:57 AM

swos

October 24th 2005, 09:05 AM

I suppose it's time to take the plunge and dive into a real discussion here on TW.

First things first, I wanted to commend you (apostoli) on your kind spirit of discussion. I'm usually more of a lurker on the forum, and I've seen far too many ad hominem attacks in other threads on TW. Especially the topic of the Trinity.

I equate the Logos of Jn 1:1, with Jesus Christ. How the Father begat the Son is not revealed so I don't worry about it. I acknowledge the Son as he who revealed God in the OT. He that fought with Jacob etc. The angel of the Lord, angel in as much as he is/was the messenger of God but above the angels. As Novatian says, if an angel be called God, how much more should the Son of God be called God. But though all things have been subjected to the Son, the Son is subject to the Father and so there is only one true God, the Father.

I'm leaning that way these days, though I haven't abandoned belief in the Trinity. (It's not easy to let go of something like that.)

Below I'll discuss what I believe to be most convincing about a non-Trinitarian view.

First, it seems to me that a lot of people are overlooking the background of the term Logos.

An English translation of Logos as "Word" offers little insight into the fullness of the Greek idea. Nor does the Vulgate's translation of Logos as "Verbum", for Verbum is synonymous with word and holds no extra connotation. I can speak further only for Luther's translation which renders Logos as "Wort". (I believe Luther used the Vulgate for his translation, anyway.)

Logos wasn't just a "word". Logos was thought by Greeks to be that which animates the universe. The Logos binds all things together through rationality and logic. For without the Logos there would be no rhyme or reason to anything.

The Logos for the Greeks did, of course, only exist as a philosophical concept. Hellenised Jews, though, weren't shy for using borrowed terms to define Judaic thought.

Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus. He was a Hellenised Jew. From my reading, he never had contact with Jesus or any of the apostles, but he had several ideas pertaining to the Logos in relation to God's nature. I don't believe he would be unique in describing God's nature in terms of Greek terms. Certainly John doesn't shy away from a Greek style of presentation, as his Gospel tackles issues of metaphysics from the viewpoint of a first century Nazarene Jew.

Philo writes, "Now the image of God is the Word [Logos], by which all the world was made." Philo himself was convinced of the same thing John was in the writing of his Gospel. Namely, the manner in which God would reveal Himself to the creation; and the manner in which he expresses his creative power.

We are told in Colossians 1:15 that, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Can that which is God be an image of God at the same time? Paul states that God is invisible. John agrees in his opening chapter that no one has seen God, but the only begotten has made Him known. And He is called "the firstborn of all creation". Certainly when Jesus inhabited a physical body that body wasn't the firstborn of all creation. So how could he be described as the firstborn of all creation? John states clearly that Jesus (identifying Him as the Logos) was in the beginning with God. And was God. But how does God have a beginning? God is eternal and derives no beginning, and He is without end. Jesus was/is the perfect reflection of God. He was begotten in the sense that he proceeded from God in God's act of creation. God's creative act (of the universe, of time, of everything that is) was through Jesus in the beginning. Thus, "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Again in Colossians Paul states, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him", affirming what John said.

Further, "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

This is a statement of the idea of the Logos. [Though I don't believe Paul consciously drew parallels here.] The Logos was that which binds everything together, and without which nothing could exist.

Paul goes on, "...and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. "

I stressed a few things through use of italics. I'll expand on that. First, Paul describes Jesus as being the beginning. No one or nothing else in creation could make that claim. For this reason, He is over all creation. All things are subject to Him, just as they are subject to the Father. And Paul states that all of God's fullness dwelt within Jesus. What the Father willed, the Son would do. And just as the original creative act was through Jesus, so would reconcilliation be through Him, as Paul describes.

Given John 5:37. I do not believe that Jesus is YHWH, but is that which the Israelites saw and heard and understood to be a representation of God calling him God, angel etc.

Agreed. The invisible God Most High revealed Himself to us through Jesus at various times in history, and finally through the act of Redemption.

Not sure why there's a debate about the modes in which God revealed Himself and how He chose to interact with creation throughout history. Old Testament passages show how God sent angels to carry out His will. As an example, Daniel relays the story of a vision he had in Daniel 10. In the course of things, he encounters an angel sent to him by God. The angel informs him that the prince (or angel) of the kingdom of Persia had stood in his way, but that the prince (angel) Michael had come to aid him. The angel states that he would have come to Daniel sooner in response to a prayer had this not taken place. It seems clear to me from this and other passages that God chooses to execute his will through intermediaries.

There are instances where the Angel of the Lord speaks on behalf of God. He speaks in first person as if he were God. Yet there is no debate or rebuke given about/for the fact that an Angel does this.

And how much greater is the act of redemption of mankind through his Only Begotten Son? Paul states that it was the Father's good pleasure to have this happen.

I believe issues of people worshipping Jesus as God are moot, as He is the full likeness of God.

Basically I have an orthodox view.

That seems the most Orthodox view, all things considered. Closest to first century thought, anyway. I tend to think a good deal of things beyond the second century gets extraneous.

I believe that's about it for now.

Regards.

andiwashere

October 24th 2005, 01:13 PM

Hey Sparko, sorry for the delay. I got side tracked. (and, like, your avatar is a bit disturbing.. :outtie: ).

Regarding OT sacrifices, you said, They were merely the instrument though which God allowed them to show their worship and repentance.
I completely agree. God chose to accept those sacrifices, performed with circumcised hearts, as atonements. There was nothing inherent within the animals, even the blood, that directly covered the debts of sin. It was a choice, of Gods, to allow such representations to have meaning.

since God is the one who is being sinned against, only he can forgive the sins. His justice demands that he cannot forgive them without payment, right?.
Yes, and only God can decide what the payment must be.

So who is the only being 'large' enough to pay for all of the sins? God. God can pay the price that he demands..
Who is the only being 'large' enough to decide what is 'large' enough? God. God can demand any price he deems satisfactory. What sense was it, in the first place, to accept animals? By my logic no animal, or blood of an animal, can atone for (cover or remit) the debt I owe God. Yet, he allowed just that in the OT.

Any lesser creature could only pay for his own sins, not for every ones..
Yet, God allowed the blood of lesser animals to cover mans sins. Why can't he allow the blood of his Son to completely remit mans sins? It seems you are restricting God, and His freedom, in order fit your own understanding.

And don't forget, YHWH said he was the ONLY savior. We know that Jesus was our savior. Put the two together and who do you think Jesus is?..
I'm still working on that...for now though, it looks like Jesus was either God...or, Gods servant (in some form).

Cheers,Andi

andiwashere

October 24th 2005, 04:08 PM

Hello again apostoli,

God decreed all of his creation "very good"....
I think I've taken us about as far off topic as is humanly possible (unless you want to hear my theory regarding molassas and molassas cookies...). :teeth:

Regarding separation in human relations...I completely agree with everything you said, and I try to live my life by that understanding. However....oh, never mind...

Regarding water separation and weather patterns....try the high plains, our afternoon coolings don't bring as much rain...but you might want to stay away from cell phones...

Anyways, you're probably about the kindest person I've ever met online. Thanks for playing the musing game with me.:flowers:

And, btw, your posts are very interesting and educational.

Cheers,
Andi

andiwashere

October 24th 2005, 06:16 PM

In Hebrew “Hebraic understanding” the bloodline is counted from the Father- The father of Jesus God (Spirit) not Joseph-
Sorry, but I have no idea why you mentioned that. Am I being dense? Is that a counter argument to something I said? Speak slowly if you would...I'm probably starting from way behind of most people that you talk to.

you obviously don’t or did not consider Hebrew “Chapter 9”
Did so. :tongue: ...I just forgot to mention it...

If the question was/is...'is it necessary for Jesus to be God, in order for his death to atone for our sins?' I find nothing in Hebrew 9 stipulating the affirmative. Certainly, Hebrews affirms Jesus as having greater effect then an animal sacrifice. But, it does not claim that greater effect is a result of being God.

Regarding your quote of Hebrew 9:14; every translation I look at says, '...the Spirit..', not '...his Spirit...'

If you and I are still ping-ponging over Gods law against human sacrifice...I already addressed that. You and I simply have a different understanding of Gods law compared to the circumstance of Jesus' death. Besides, I don't think Jesus was simply a man, so it's really a minor point in the whole theme park of Andiland.

You can quote JKE if you want :smile:
Too lazy. I just cut-paste quote commands.

Much further NE from Ebla...let's see...Ulaanbataar? :yes:

Cheers John,
Andi

Sparko

October 24th 2005, 06:19 PM

Who is the only being 'large' enough to decide what is 'large' enough? God. God can demand any price he deems satisfactory. What sense was it, in the first place, to accept animals? By my logic no animal, or blood of an animal, can atone for (cover or remit) the debt I owe God. Yet, he allowed just that in the OT.

Yet, God allowed the blood of lesser animals to cover mans sins.

Actually, he didn't though. I hope that you, like me, think the whole bible is true and that it must reconcile within itself. You can't have it saying one thing in one place and the exact opposite in another place, right? If you read something like that, then the most likely reason is that you are misreading it somehow, right?

Well as I pointed out Hebrew 10 specifically SAYS that the animals did not forgive the sins.

Hebrews 10:1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
So God did NOT make the rule that the animal sacrifices would forgive the sins in the Old Testament.

So if the animal sacrifices did not forgive the sins, and we know that the OT saints like David and Moses, etc WERE forgiven and are in heaven, then something else must have been taking place. Something else paid for their sins. What was it? Well it wasn't a "what" but a "who", Jesus.

Read Hebrews in its entirety. It talks about how Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice, ONCE for ALL Time ("All" meaning from Adam till Armageddon)

And not only was he the sacrifice, he is the high priest able to make the offering and mediate between us and the Father. Being Human and Divine, Jesus is both fully human so he can represent us and fully divine so he can represent God. The perfect mediator.

God Bless,

apostoli

October 24th 2005, 10:35 PM

Apostoli! Good to see you back. :-) I am reading the thread after a couple days offline.Hi Alam,

Nice to be back. All went well.

I've been going through my archives and just reread "The Trinity & Subordinationism by Kevin Giles" discussion we chatted about some time back. Just checked, there is no additions to what I have archived, which is a pity.
http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity

My current project is trying to determine what modern "oness belief" is. So far the sites I've come across haven't been helpful, "mainly this is so believe it" as opposed to concise rationalisations. Have you any references/links I might find useful?

John from Ebla

October 24th 2005, 10:48 PM

If the question was/is...'is it necessary for Jesus to be God, in order for his death to atone for our sins?' I find nothing in Hebrew 9 stipulating the affirmative. Certainly, Hebrews affirms Jesus as having greater effect then an animal sacrifice. But, it does not claim that greater effect is a result of being God.

Regarding your quote of Hebrew 9:14; every translation I look at says, '...the Spirit..', not '...his Spirit...'

Hebrew 9:14 is as you say and as l read it "by virtue of the eternal spirit in him" The logos was the eternal spirit that became flesh- that is why Jesus is LORD (GOD) Christ (anointed one = messiah and Jesus (The man that died- the eternal spirit in him, logos, did not die.) The Logos was God and with God- it became flesh John 1:1-3,14

The writer of Hebrew agrees with John 1:1-3,14. He writes “But as to son, he says to him, Your throne of God is forever…..”

Some people read scripture and just pick nick the human side of Jesus- others pick nick the God side of him. The truth of the scriptures is that he has to natures, Human and God.

Like oxygen is in water, but we don’t see it, and without it water will not exist. So to, the Blood of Jesus, which is counted through his Father, (God) is pure by virtue of the spirit in him (Hew 9:14) that we don’t see, without it he would just be a man.

As Sparko said and by what is written in the scriptures. He made the ultimate sacrifice. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

betzerg

October 24th 2005, 11:10 PM

Actually, he didn't though. I hope that you, like me, think the whole bible is true and that it must reconcile within itself. You can't have it saying one thing in one place and the exact opposite in another place, right? If you read something like that, then the most likely reason is that you are misreading it somehow, right?

Well as I pointed out Hebrew 10 specifically SAYS that the animals did not forgive the sins.

Hebrews 10:1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
So God did NOT make the rule that the animal sacrifices would forgive the sins in the Old Testament.

So if the animal sacrifices did not forgive the sins, and we know that the OT saints like David and Moses, etc WERE forgiven and are in heaven, then something else must have been taking place. Something else paid for their sins. What was it? Well it wasn't a "what" but a "who", Jesus.

Read Hebrews in its entirety. It talks about how Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice, ONCE for ALL Time ("All" meaning from Adam till Armageddon)

And not only was he the sacrifice, he is the high priest able to make the offering and mediate between us and the Father. Being Human and Divine, Jesus is both fully human so he can represent us and fully divine so he can represent God. The perfect mediator.

God Bless,

This is exactly why christianity needs the trinity. Because without this obscure and contradictory esoteric concept, the death of Jesus as the sacrifice for sin makes no sense whatsoever. But if we can add the "fully man, fully G-d concept" maybe we can make this whole thing work. It is utterly ridiculous.

Messiah was NEVEr to be a "human sacrifice" (this is anti-torah). Messiah was never intended to be fully man/fully G-d....(this is an impossiblity and violates the first commandment) "G-d is NOT a man....."

Any blood sacrifice, perfect or not, could NEVEr atone for a willful transgression of the Laws of G-d (even paul speaks about a sin unto death)...only repentance and prayer...and the mercy of G-d forgave intentional sins.

Drinking human blood was occultic and of pagan origins.....totally against torah.

BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!If we make jesus FULLY G-D and a mystical emmanation that has no reality as a real walking talking "messiah" then maybe we could make it all fit.

Sorry, it doesn't fit.

read torah.

Shalom,

BETZER

Menachem

October 24th 2005, 11:47 PM

I would actually love to see a debate between a trinitarian and those of you that say that the trinity is not what was originally taught. It would be a good one for a debate.

John from Ebla

October 25th 2005, 01:29 AM

This is exactly why christianity needs the trinity. Because without this obscure and contradictory esoteric concept, the death of Jesus as the sacrifice for sin makes no sense whatsoever. But if we can add the "fully man, fully G-d concept" maybe we can make this whole thing work. It is utterly ridiculous.

Messiah was NEVEr to be a "human sacrifice" (this is anti-torah). Messiah was never intended to be fully man/fully G-d....(this is an impossiblity and violates the first commandment) "G-d is NOT a man....."

Any blood sacrifice, perfect or not, could NEVEr atone for a willful transgression of the Laws of G-d (even paul speaks about a sin unto death)...only repentance and prayer...and the mercy of G-d forgave intentional sins.

Drinking human blood was occultic and of pagan origins.....totally against torah.

BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!If we make jesus FULLY G-D and a mystical emmanation that has no reality as a real walking talking "messiah" then maybe we could make it all fit.

Sorry, it doesn't fit.

read torah.

Shalom,

BETZER

l hate to disappoint your excitement, but there is no commandment that say’s God is not man- it simple say’s “ God is not man that he should lie” look it up if you know your Torah. The fact is, our torah say’s God presence was in the Tabernacle of old – and lets get it straight presence does not mean someone else or something else.

Of Course God is not man. God is spirit- and his spiirt, presence can be where it wants to be.

"Shekinah Glory" the Hebrew expression for the "Very Presence of God". It is found in our Chaldee and Targums, where it is used by the Jewish writers to express the manifestation of the transcendent God in the tanakh- Encyclopedia Judaica the "Shekinah" is defined as "the Divine Presence, the numinous immanence of God in the world- a revelation of the holy in the midst of the profane...." (Volume 14, pp. 1349-1351).

In Ex 24:1 Moses was to see the form of God "Very Presence of God " "Shekinah" that man can see- the image of the invisible God that man was created in- the Elohim plural. It is not another god, a lesser god or two gods it is the "Echad God” What your saying is, the Shekinah can dwell in a Tabernacle made by human hands but not in a tabernacle made by God (human body)

The Shekinah is the visable image of God, who is none other than his very own menra/logos/word that became flesh- his son. According to the Jewish writers of the New Testament - his is the image of the invisble Father.

Sorry, but Sparco and the scriptures are right. :wink:

Shalom
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 25th 2005, 03:39 AM

The blood of a Goat, a lamb or a dove would only roll the sin ahead for a space of time under the Old Testament Levitical law- but in the ignorance of the true and living God, that appeared to Abraham in visible form, ancients monotheists, pagan in their belief, offered human sacrifices in their pagan witchcraft ceremonies in attempt to win the approval of there god.

Ancient Israel started to follow pagan monotheisms by sacrificing humans just like the nations around them: “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) (2 Kgs. 21:6, 2 Chron. 33:6) (2 Kgs. 16:1-3)

If Jesus was not God in nature, (2 Cor 5:19) wouldn’t God have to apologies to all those pagans that practice human sacrifices “I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) Sending creation to save creation? or as you say "another god" this is absurb

NOTE: that in all the above reference the victims of sacrifice were sons and daughter. God never commanded their sons and daughters to be offered. The common pattern here is NOT 'human' sacrifice, but 'CHILD' sacrifice- to kill an innocent child as a sacrifice was murder- but according to the law (torah) there is such a thing as guilty punishable by death. Read Isaiah 53 and see how God is laying the sins upon the messiah = anointed one= Christ =Jesus = LORD

God never commanded Israel to offer their sons and daughters but the Torah does teach about the servant of the Lord (Jesus-Isaiah 53) verse 11 “……he shall bear their iniquities and guilt. And verse 10 “…..an offering for sin…….”

This is why Jesus father was God- not Joseph- in Hebrew “Hebraic understanding” the bloodline is counted from the Father- The father of Jesus is God (Spirit) and he was over 30 when he was offered as per Isaiah 53

All laid out in the TORAH. :blush:

GOD is not man, Correct! GOD is Spirit, that is what it's telling you- and he can do what he wants to do, incarnate his own menra/logos/word

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 25th 2005, 05:39 AM

Yes, but John does not say the Logos was another form of god- this is the point of my discussion with you.I agree that "John does not say the Logos was another form of god" but nor does John 1:1 say that the Logos was God. Allow me to explain: Yes the literal Greek is translated "the Word was God", as even the JWs have it in their translation (but with a little g). However, as the trinitarian, and Greek scholar, Dr. Mantey in his letter to WTS (refuting the NWT rendering) points out the more appropriate interpretation "is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: 'What God was, the Word was': and with that of Barclay: 'The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God'"
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html

You may not be aware that in ancient Jewish teaching: the Torah, the Messiah and a few other things were thought of as having pre-existence "the Torah, which is called 'the firstling of His way' (Prov. viii. 22, Hebr.); the throne of glory, which is 'established of old' (Ps. xciii. 2); the Messiah—'Before the sun his name sprouts forth as Yinnon, 'the Awakener'' (Ps. lxxii. 17, rabbinical interpretation); also, 'His issue is from the beginning' (Micah v. 1; Pir?e R. El. iii.); "
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=504&letter=P&search=messiah

To the Jew, the Torah is the Word of God, the Son of God. John wasn't writing to a bunch of Gentiles but a bunch of Christianised Jews and Gentiles who would have been taught from the OT, and presumably were familiar with A.Paul's epistles. Did John teach another God to that of the OT which the Jews knew to worship? I say no. The Jew sees/saw the Torah as the Son of God and what do we find John concluding in the Gospel, that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah (Jn 20:31). The contrast between Jesus and the Law starts at Jn 1:17-18 and continues throughout the gospel and is often preached in A.Paul's letters.

John says throughout the gospel, that Jesus has come to complete the Law and the promise received from the prophets. Whereas the Jew knew God through the Law handed down by Moses, Jesus came to declare his Father (Jn 1:17-18). Note what Jesus says to them "If God were your Father, you would love me, for God is the source of my being, and from him I come. I have not come of my own accord; he sent me. Why do you not understand my language? It is because my revelation is beyond your grasp...He who has God for his father listens to the words of God. You are not God's children; that is why you do not listen" (NEB Jn 8:42-47)

Was the Torah God to the Jews or the Word of God? Did Jesus speak his own words? No, he soke the words given him by the Father, the only true God! (Jn 17:3-8)

Lets not go around pick nicking versesAgreed, but we should at least establish context and meaning of scripture. And avoid adding to what scripture actually says, or at least substantiate our opinions by reference to the scriptures (1 Jn 4:1; Acts 17:11).

I can say Jesus is the 'first and last' so he is GodYou could but it wouldn't be scriptual. Not nit picking but the beginning of Rev 1:11 in the KJV is recognised as spurious text by most authorities as it doesn't have adequate mss support. In most translations the verse starts with the words "What you see write down...". As for Rev 21:6 & 22:13, it is apparent from 21:5-6 that it is God, he that sat upon the throne, who is speaking not the Lamb. Have a look at Rev 7:9-10, "the multitude cried with a loud voice Salvation to our God who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." Pointedly the Lamb is not identified as God but as beith with God.

So I guess you are referring to Rev 1:17 which is explained by vs18.

Unless you can explain how a Spirit is in a Spirit, you are just blowing out words for the wind- scriptures say there is only “One Spirit” but you are saying the spirit of the Logos is not the same as the spirit of God- scriptures say it was God. John 1:1-3,14Pointedly, the word Spirit doesn't occur in these verses. So I presume you are relating your own understanding/interpretation of the overall teaching of the scriptures, which seems at odds with the majority teaching. To help me understand your view could you provide a fuller post giving your reasoning. For now, I'll try to explain mine.

It is not I but A.Paul who reveals several Spirits (Rom 8:9). I'll repeat what I said in my last post: Romans 8 makes a distinction between three Spirits: the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit (vs16) but it is the Spirit of God that dwells in us (vs9&11). Vs9 says "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,he is none of his". Phil 2:1-4, given vs5-8, seems to give an ample definition of the "Spirit of Christ"

I agree that there is only one "the Spirit", the comforter whom Jesus promised. However check a concordance and you'll see there are many "spirits" talked about. For instance at 1 Jn 4:6 it says "We are of God. He that knows God hears us; but he that is not of God does not hear us. By this know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error". A little earlier at vs2&3, John says "By this know the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that [does not] is not of God, and this is that spirit of antichrist."

From A.Paul's and A.John's writings (but especially Rom 8) it seems to me that the Spirit of Christ which we are suppose to have and the Spirit of God which consequently dwells in us, is an attitude. Whereas, "The Spirit" is that which proceeds from the Father through the Son and bears witness with our witness. This idea seems consistent with what Jesus prayed at Jn 17:20-23) From John 17:23, it seems we receive the Spirit of God which in Christ, by virtual that the Spirit of Christ be in us and so we might be perfect as one. According to Rom 8:26-27, "The Spirit" is our helper and intercessor; which I understand to mean that which assists us to be of the same mind and attitude as Christ.

The Logos was of the One Spirit not another so he is God not god (another) but he is not the Father.See my comments above. Spirit is such a vague word in the English language. It can apply to breathe, demons, attitudes and God's active force. I agree that in essence the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in attitude, will and purpose. However, I don't accept that they are a single being, a single entity but three distinct entities united as one. That is: I believe in a tri-unity of entities, with the Father as King being the only true God, and the Son, the Prince, having all things subjected to him by the Father, appointed to be as God over us, and the Spirit (the counsellor) sent to guide us.

I don't perceive the scriptures as teaching the Son as another God, but nor do I perceive the scriptures as making him God absolute. Only the Father is called God in the NT, and Jesus, the Son of God is spoken of as having become our owner, master and thus Lord. It is he who judges us to eternal life or enduring death and in this context he is God to us. As I said in a previous post: Anyone with power over your life and/or death is conceptually god while that power exists. YHWH defines himself this way at Ex 32:39. According to A.Paul, the Father has subjected all things unto the Son, but only for a time (1 Cor 15:24-28).

Gen 19-24, "The Lord God rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord God out of heaven" (There is no distinction in Gen 19-24, but they are one spirit as Husband and wife are one Flesh, not a different kind of flesh, but two individuals)As I said in the last post: I'm sure you are aware that in middle-eastern thought a representative of say a king, is recognised as the king, with the same power and authority; without distinction. So YHWH raining brimstone etc, from YHWH out of heaven is not particularly revealing. Generally, in the OT when YHWH is active, it is via a representive.

Theologically God is not spoken of as having substance, such as flesh. But I understand what you are saying in terms of co-substantiality. The orthodox view is the Father and Son are one in nature/essence. Language is particularly inadequate to express the idea. The real problem at the Nicene and later councils. The Greek term preferred by Athanasius, was a Sabellian term condemned at the Council of Antioch years before. Things got worse when the Latin theologians tried to translate it. Hence all the confusion today. Personally, I go along with A.Paul when he said "the things of God knoweth no man" (1 Cor 2:11), so I don't see the point in speculating. I'd rather concentrate on accepting "the things that are freely given to us of God" (1 Cor 2:12. Have a read of vs13 also.)

Bob Smith (Father) has a (son) Jim Smith he is still a Smith and the same kind of flesh, not a different kind- but he is not his Father. Why is the case of the logos you make it a different kind of god and not God. They are the same kind of spirit. The Love of Christ is the Love of the Father- the same spirit as the Father because the Logos in him was the fullness of God. John 1:1-3,14God is not generally viewed as a genus. Essentially, humans are just a subgroup of primates, so the reality is Bob Smith and his son are just apes, admittedly hairless but still apes :-)

With the Smiths, Jim may not be the exact image of his Father. However, the Son of God is the exact image of his Father. Gregory of Nyssa provides an illustration "Accordingly, there is no divergence of will between the Father and the Son, but the image of goodness is after the Archetype of all goodness and beauty, and as, if a man should look at himself in a glass (for it is perfectly allowable to explain the idea by corporeal illustrations), the copy will in all respects be conformed to the original, the shape of the man who is reflected being the cause of the shape on the glass, and the reflection making no spontaneous movement or inclination unless commenced by the original, but, if it move, moving along with it,--in like manner we maintain that our Lord, the Image of the invisible God, is immediately and inseparably one with the Father in every movement of His Will." (Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1)

My understanding of scripture is the Son of God is a reflection of God the Father and therefore not the only true God, whom A.Paul and Jesus via A.John identifies as the Father.

Why is the case of the logos you make it a different kind of god and not God. They are the same kind of spirit. The Love of Christ is the Love of the Father- the same spirit as the Father because the Logos in him was the fullness of God. John 1:1-3,14 I agree the Son has the same attitude, will and purpose (=spirit) as the Father and that the Son is equal in power, majesty etc to the Father, as it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell. But everything the Son has is from the Father, the Father being the cause and source of all things and therefore as scripture says, the Father is the only true God, and the Son is Jesus Christ whom he has sent (Jn 17:3).

I acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, and God to us, because firstly he was begotten of God and by him were all things made. But I acknowledge only the Father as the only true God, because the Son derives everything thing that he is, from the Father . This is the consistent message of the scriptures, clearly articulated, especially by the apostle Paul.

It is my view that people get confounded by the doctrine of the trinity because they fail to define the word God. To my mind, God is the cause and source of all things and only the Father is defined in scripture in this way. That said: Another term that needs defining is Godhead, which I perceive in the context of the throne of God and his kingdom, wherein the only begotten Son sits on the right hand of the Father.

The trinity I accept, is that of the Godhead, what is most often called the economic trinity. The montheism that I adhere to is that articulated by the apostles without exception.

apostoli

October 25th 2005, 05:40 AM

Hi swos,

I suppose it's time to take the plunge and dive into a real discussion here on TW.Dive deep. The water is a little choppy but not threatening.

First things first, I wanted to commend you (apostoli) on your kind spirit of discussion. I'm usually more of a lurker on the forum, and I've seen far too many ad hominem attacks in other threads on TW. Especially the topic of the Trinity.Thankyou. Life is too short, and there is too much to learn - I just avoid diversions. Best advice I might give is ignore the flack, keep to scripture and do a 1 Jn 4:1; Acts 17:11.

I'm leaning that way these days, though I haven't abandoned belief in the Trinity. (It's not easy to let go of something like that.)Which one economic, immanent, physchlogical? There are a few.

Basically, I draw the line where a teaching suggests that the Father, Son and Spirit are one being. Which I perceive as Sabellianism. Though I do accept that they are one in being. It is a subtlety that many miss.

I had consider myself quite unorthodox in my beliefs, but the more I read, the more I discover I am most Catholic, at least in the context of the first four centuries of the church. Consider, article IV from A Sectional Confession of the Faith
BY ST. GREGORY THAUMATURGUS...

"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same. For he holds that the Father is He who speaks, and that the Son is the Word that abides in the Father, and becomes manifest at the time of the creation, and thereafter reverts to God on the fulfilling of all things. The same affirmation he makes also of the Spirit. We forswear this, because we believe that three persons--namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature; and thus there is a (divinity that is the) property of the Father, according to the word, "There is one God the Father;" and there is a divinity hereditary in the Son, as it is written, "The Word was God;" and there is a divinity present according to nature in the Spirit into wit, what subsists as the Spirit of God--according to Paul's statement, "Ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0605.htm

First, it seems to me that a lot of people are overlooking the background of the term Logos.Coincidentally, I've just written a reply to John of Elber on Jn 1:1. I'd like to have your view.

An English translation of Logos as "Word" offers little insight into the fullness of the Greek idea. Nor does the Vulgate's translation of Logos as "Verbum", for Verbum is synonymous with word and holds no extra connotation. I can speak further only for Luther's translation which renders Logos as "Wort". (I believe Luther used the Vulgate for his translation, anyway.)I agree. The Lexicon definition of Logos is extensive.

The Logos for the Greeks did, of course, only exist as a philosophical concept. Hellenised Jews, though, weren't shy for using borrowed terms to define Judaic thought.One tends to be forced to use the common tongue and its technical terms when trying to explain foreign ideas. By illustration a translation for a language used in the Pacific Islands talks of the "sacrifical pig". The islanders having no idea what a lamb was.

Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus. He was a Hellenised Jew. From my reading, he never had contact with Jesus or any of the apostles, but he had several ideas pertaining to the Logos in relation to God's nature. I don't believe he would be unique in describing God's nature in terms of Greek terms. Certainly John doesn't shy away from a Greek style of presentation, as his Gospel tackles issues of metaphysics from the viewpoint of a first century Nazarene Jew.I don't believe that John drew on Philo for his exposition as some commentators suggest but accept the possibility that John drew on ideas familar to his audience. Particularly the Jewish understanding of what the Word of God was. Not long ago I read an article of how very Jewish in thought John's Gospel actually is.

Philo writes, "Now the image of God is the Word [Logos], by which all the world was made." Philo himself was convinced of the same thing John was in the writing of his Gospel. Namely, the manner in which God would reveal Himself to the creation; and the manner in which he expresses his creative power.Tends to make me think of Prv 8.

First, Paul describes Jesus as being the beginning. No one or nothing else in creation could make that claim. For this reason, He is over all creation. All things are subject to Him, just as they are subject to the Father. And Paul states that all of God's fullness dwelt within Jesus. What the Father willed, the Son would do. And just as the original creative act was through Jesus, so would reconcilliation be through Him, as Paul describes.It comes to mind that things were not subjected unto the Son until after his sacrifice (Phil 2:6-11)though I might be convinced otherwise.

Not sure why there's a debate about the modes in which God revealed Himself and how He chose to interact with creation throughout history. Old Testament passages show how God sent angels to carry out His will...It seems clear to me from this and other passages that God chooses to execute his will through intermediaries. There are instances where the Angel of the Lord speaks on behalf of God. He speaks in first person as if he were God. Yet there is no debate or rebuke given about/for the fact that an Angel does this.Agreed. I think the confusion comes from Trinitarians who have taken "shortcuts" adopt Oneness arguments and find themselves teaching Sabellianism.

And how much greater is the act of redemption of mankind through his Only Begotten Son? Paul states that it was the Father's good pleasure to have this happen.Amen.

I believe issues of people worshipping Jesus as God are moot, as He is the full likeness of God.To some extent I agree, but I would say I worship the Father through the Son.

[Apostoli's view] seems the most Orthodox view, all things considered. Closest to first century thought, anyway. I tend to think a good deal of things beyond the second century gets extraneous.My best estimate is that I am in accord with most orthodox writers up until the time of Augustine, from which time Western and Eastern theology seems to have diverged, with the East maintaining biblical beliefs and the West burying themselves in philosophy and opinion. I'm not certain but to some extent I think I do accord with the official "Statements of Faith" of both the RC & EO, but that might just wishful thinking on my part. As a friend of mine here would tell me: "The proof is in the detail".

apostoli

October 25th 2005, 06:11 AM

Hi andiwashere,

I think I've taken us about as far off topic as is humanly possible (unless you want to hear my theory regarding molassas and molassas cookies...). The diversion was welcome. Can't be serious all the time, makes one quite dull and I'm dull enough :wink:

Mind you, we weren't terribly off topic. We were basically discussing God in our lives, which heads towards the title of this thread.

unless you want to hear my theory regarding molassas and molassas cookies...I'm not big on molassas. Golden Syrup and sugar heated and mixed with bicarb (the active force=spirit). Its a trinity! :ahem: Covered in chocolate is excellent.

Just had a thought. Golden Syrup is derived from sugar. Think about it!

Regarding separation in human relations...I completely agree with everything you said, and I try to live my life by that understanding.Not the easiest thing to do but that is why we have the comforter.

Later

John from Ebla

October 25th 2005, 07:35 AM

I agree that "John does not say the Logos was another form of god" but nor does John 1:1 say that the Logos was God. Allow me to explain: Yes the literal Greek is translated "the Word was God", as even the JWs have it in their translation (but with a little g). However, as the trinitarian, and Greek scholar, Dr. Mantey in his letter to WTS (refuting the NWT rendering) points out the more appropriate interpretation "is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: 'What God was, the Word was': and with that of Barclay: 'The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God'"

So now you are getting on to false believers to support your claims, JW- small g and big G. Wow we had to wait for JW to know the truth because Paul could'nt tell us. Sorry, you lost this one. :smile:

You may not be aware that in ancient Jewish teaching: the Torah, the Messiah and a few other things were thought of as having pre-existence "the Torah, which is called 'the firstling of His way' (Prov. viii. 22, Hebr.); the throne of glory, which is 'established of old' (Ps. xciii. 2); the Messiah—'Before the sun his name sprouts forth as Yinnon, 'the Awakener'' (Ps. lxxii. 17, rabbinical interpretation); also, 'His issue is from the beginning' (Micah v. 1; Pir?e R. El. iii.);
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=504&letter=P&search=messiah

Yes l am aware. The Jews were given 40 years to accept Jesus. (Jesus started his ministry around 30 and Jerusalem was destroyed 70 Ad = 40 years, the same as in the wilderness, God’s patience ran out- now you are telling me, "put aside the writing of John and Paul for what God cast away" why don't you check the first century Jewish writing and see what say about the presence of God in the tabernacle of old, why wait centuries after.

To the Jew, the Torah is the Word of God, the Son of God. John wasn't writing to a bunch of Gentiles but a bunch of Christianised Jews and Gentiles who would have been taught from the OT, and presumably were familiar with A.Paul's epistles. Did John teach another God to that of the OT which the Jews knew to worship? I say no. The Jew sees/saw the Torah as the Son of God and what do we find John concluding in the Gospel, that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah (Jn 20:31). The contrast between Jesus and the Law starts at Jn 1:17-18 and continues throughout the gospel and is often preached in A.Paul's letters.

Blow out another one- the torah talks about sex and marriage- that is not what the messiah is. The feasts of the Jews were the shadows of the past, Jesus is the reality. Of course that is not what the church of God thinks- they still stay in a booth for seven days once a year, and so do the Jews. Do you wonder why?

Was the Torah God to the Jews or the Word of God? Did Jesus speak his own words? No, he soke the words given him by the Father, the only true God! (Jn 17:3-8) .

He was the word, and the word was God. The Logos was in Jesus- the Logos and the Father are one, that is why Jesus said l and the father are one. He spoke the Fathers word because that is what the logos is- the word of God- not another. What are you on about? :smile:

Will reply to the rest of your post, regarding "spirit" latter- l don't like making long posts.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 25th 2005, 09:42 AM

So now you are getting on to false believers to support your claims, JW- small g and big G. Wow we had to wait for JW to know the truth because Paul could'nt tell us. Sorry, you lost this one.If you read my post without prejudice, you would note I was not calling on JW support. In fact I was calling on the support of their opponents in my asertion. Obviously you haven't read Mantey or any of the other biblical scholars who refute the NWT and the JWs. Should you read them, you will find you have lost this one and your posts aren't supported by orthodox (nor RC) trinitarian scholars or clergy. Oneness believers might find value though.

By the way, not Paul but John is telling the story about the Logos. Paul is quite specific about who God is. At Eph 4:17 he refers to him as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory" and at Eph 3:14-15 he says "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." Come to think of it, John is very specific as well, at John 17:3 he has Jesus declaring his Father as being the only true God. A very consistent theme amongst the apostles.

Yes l am aware. The Jews were given 40 years to accept Jesus. (Jesus started his ministry around 30 and Jerusalem was destroyed 70 Ad = 40 years, the same as in the wilderness, God’s patience ran out- now you are telling me, "put aside the writing of John and Paul for what God cast away" why don't you check the first century Jewish writing and see what say about the presence of God in the tabernacle of old, why wait centuries after.I was relating several centuries of Jewish belief that pre-dates the birth of Christ. Which one can presume is reflected in the Christian Jews' expectation and understanding of the Gospel of John written 20+ years after the destruction of Jerusalem. It might be helpfull for us to remember John was a simple Palestine Jew inspired by God, not a philosopher or theologian. Nowhere in the scripture does it say God cast the Torah away. Jesus said he came to fullfill it, not destroy it! True we are not bound by its observance, our salvation is through Christ. Which A.John and A.Paul tried to explain.

Blow out another one- the torah talks about sex and marriage- that is not what the messiah is. The feasts of the Jews were the shadows of the past, Jesus is the reality. Of course that is not what the church of God thinks- they still stay in a booth for seven days once a year, and so do the Jews. Do you wonder why?Torah talks of many things, including due observance in the worship of God, which Jesus preached. Basically it consists of most of the OT. It is universally seen as the foundation stone of Christianity, so I wouldn't be too quick to disgard it. After all Jesus said he came to fullfill it, not destroy it! And as I said above, True we are not bound by its observance, our salvation is through Christ. Which A.John and A.Paul tried to explain.

He was the word, and the word was God. The Logos was in Jesus- the Logos and the Father are one, that is why Jesus said l and the father are one. He spoke the Fathers word because that is what the logos is- the word of God- not another. What are you on about?I agree the Word of God was in Jesus. John 17:6-8="Now [those that you have given to me (Jesus)] have known that all things, whatever you have given me, are of thee. For I have given them the words which you gave me; and they have received them and have known surely that I come from you, and they believe that you did send me."

Will reply to the rest of your post, regarding "spirit" latter- l don't like making long posts.OK. But please try to be a little more expansive. Some of your posts have been a bit cryptic and I'm not always sure if I am answering your objections to my belief.

Kind regards, in the Spirit, to you in return.

John from Ebla

October 25th 2005, 10:15 AM

Obviously you haven't read Mantey or any of the other biblical scholars who refute the NWT and the JWs. Should you read them, you will find you have lost this one and your posts, aren't supported by orthodox (nor RC) trinitarian scholars or clergy. Oneness believers might find value though.

By the way, not Paul but John is telling the story about the Logos. Paul is quite specific about who God is. At Eph 4:17 he refers to him as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory" and at Eph 3:14-15 he says "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named."

I was relating several centuries of Jewish belief that pre-dates the birth of Christ. Which one can presume is reflected in the Christian Jews' expectation and understanding of the Gospel of John written 20+ years after the destruction of Jerusalem. It might be helpfull for us to remember John was a simple Palestine Jew inspired by God, not a philosopher or theologian.

Torah talks of many things, including due observance in the worship of God, which Jesus preached. Basically it consists of most of the OT. It is universally seen as the foundation stone of Christianity, so I wouldn't be too quick to disgard it. After all Jesus said he came to fullfill it, not destroy it!

I agree the Word of God was in Jesus. John 17:6-8="Now [those that you have given to me (Jesus)] have known that all things, whatever you have given me, are of thee. For I have given them the words which you gave me; and they have received them and have known surely that I come from you, and they believe that you did send me."

OK. But please try to be a little more expansive. Some of your posts have been a bit cryptic and I'm not always sure if I am answering your objections to my belief.

Kind regards, in the Spirit, to you in return.

Luke 24:44

Fulfill does not mean re- institute. E.g. Jesus the baby was taken to Egypt Math1:14- this fulfilled what was written by Hos11.1 ' out of Egypt l called my son" That is how Mathew applies fulfill throught out his writing. and that is how Luke 24:44 puts it.

The logos/God was with God before creation, and all things were done through the logos/God. What on earth does the Torah writing given to man and for man have do with the spirit/logos that created all things :ahem:

You have lost this one and just wasting time- don't hold your breath. :sigh:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 25th 2005, 10:38 AM

Luke 24:44

Fulfill does not mean re- institute. E.g. Jesus the baby was taken to Egypt Math1:14- this fulfilled what was written by Hos11.1 ' out of Egypt l called my son" That is how Mathew applies fulfill throught out his writing. and that is how Luke 24:44 puts it.I agree full-fill, does not mean reinstitute. It means make full=complete.

Have no idea where you even conceived I implied reinstitute. Your words not mine.

As an aside: Though we are not bound to the Mosiac law, we are bound to the Noahic law, at least according to Acts. Noahic law is part of the Torah applicable to non Jews.

The logos/God was with God before creation, and all things were done through the logos/God. What on earth does the Torah writing given to man and for man have do with the spirit/logos that created all thingsProverbs 8:22 if you bothered to read my previous post and not made yourself a slave to the blindness of your own prejudices (Jn 9:39-41).

You have lost this one and just wasting time- don't hold your breath.I don't want to be unkind but as an observation the viper when it feels cornered, hisses and spits, even if it is not threatened. But that is the nature of a viper.

Now reflecting the Spirit of Christ, let us be meek in our appraisal of each opinion. So far I have used scripture and you rhetoric. If you can demonstrate your views through correlated scripture (without interpolation of self opinion) and show my error, I may gain a share in your light.

John from Ebla

October 25th 2005, 10:48 AM

I agree full-fill, does not mean reinstitute. It means make full=complete.

Have no idea where you even conceived I implied reinstitute. Your words not mine.

Proverbs 8:22 if you bothered to read my previous post and not run off on an emotional tangent.

I don't want to be unkind but as an observation the viper when it feels cornered, hisses and spits, even if it is not threatened. But that is the nature of a viper.

Now reflecting the Spirit of Christ, let us be meek in our appraisal of each opinion. So far I have used scripture and you rhetoric. If you can demonstrate your views through correlated scripture (without interpolation of opinion) and show my error, I may gain a share in your light.

You said the logos was the Torah and that Jesus said he came to fulfill it.

Now spirit -Just start with John 1:1-3 and Gen 1:1-3 and What do see.? John said in the beginning and that means Gen1:1-3

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 25th 2005, 11:08 AM

You said the logos was the Torah and that Jesus said he came to fulfill it.Read the post again. I said the Logos was the Word of God. The Christian Jews understanding when John wrote his Gospel, was not that of a Greek Philosophy but that of mainstream Jewish belief; which preceived the Torah/OT as the Word of God.

Now spirit -Just start with John 1:1-3 and Gen 1:1-3 and What do see.? John said in the beginning and that means Gen1:1-3Have no idea why you'd correlate John 1:1-3 with Gen 1:1-3. John 1:1 correlates to Genesis 1:1 and more particularly John 1:1-3 correlates in standard theology to Prv 8:22-30. Given Col 1:16 you'd be better to correlate Gen 1:1-2:24 with John 1:1-3.

The 1st Century Jew, understood the "wisdom" refered to at Prv 8:22 as the Torah. There are many Psalms/Proverbs that correlate the two.

I'm not sure what your source is for your "spirit" theology but it isn't a mainstream teaching. God is Spirit, yes, but as Augustine (the ultimate trinitarian) found neccessary, the ultimate teaching is found in understanding God is also Love.

Please try to articulate your position, providing scriptual support for your theology of "spirit" oneness. Who knows, we might actually find ourselves in agreement!

schotzy

October 25th 2005, 03:06 PM

Okay . . . just from as careful reading as I can muster, and since no one has directly answered my question, it appears that (amongst most on this thread anyway) there is a belief that modalists can be Christian, that it's really all about one's definition of the Godhead.

I think I am getting a head full of the understanding that the concept of trinity is hard. And maybe this is why Sabellius and his spiritual descendants had to make the idea of the trinity simple. I am convinced that most members of Oneness churches are fully unaware of what their church teaches about this doctrine and would spout only what their leaders say (as would, of course, churches where the trinity is a given).

Just reading this entire thread makes me comfortable as a trinitarian in a Oneness church. It's an immense topic. Will God prevent Oneness believers from entering heaven? I don't see it. But perhaps someone has a comment.
:eek:

John from Ebla

October 25th 2005, 10:36 PM

Read the post again. I said the Logos was the Word of God. The Christian Jews understanding when John wrote his Gospel, was not that of a Greek Philosophy but that of mainstream Jewish belief; which preceived the Torah/OT as the Word of God.

Have no idea why you'd correlate John 1:1-3 with Gen 1:1-3. John 1:1 correlates to Genesis 1:1 and more particularly John 1:1-3 correlates in standard theology to Prv 8:22-30. Given Col 1:16 you'd be better to correlate Gen 1:1-2:24 with John 1:1-3.

The 1st Century Jew, understood the "wisdom" refered to at Prv 8:22 as the Torah. There are many Psalms/Proverbs that correlate the two.

I'm not sure what your source is for your "spirit" theology but it isn't a mainstream teaching. God is Spirit, yes, but as Augustine (the ultimate trinitarian) found neccessary, the ultimate teaching is found in understanding God is also Love.

Please try to articulate your position, providing scriptual support for your theology of "spirit" oneness. Who knows, we might actually find ourselves in agreement!

If you want to discuss "spirit" then we are talk about the beginning- John1:1 is talking about the beginning and Genesis 1:1-3 is talking about the beginning . For the second time- what do you see in John 1:1 and Gen 1:1-3 ?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 12:26 AM

If you want to discuss "spirit" then we are talk about the beginning- John1:1 is talking about the beginning and Genesis 1:1-3 is talking about the beginning I guess your focus is on "the Spirit of God" moving upon the face of the waters and somehow you make a correlation between that and the Logos. What is your reasoning?

For the second time- what do you see in John 1:1 and Gen 1:1-3 ?That in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1, Jn 1:1). The Logos was with God in the beginning (Jn 1:1-2, Prv 8:22). That God created all things by the Logos (Jn 1:3, Col 2:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Prv 8:22-30)

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 12:31 AM

All,

In posts #63 and #97, I referred to Ex 32:39. That should have been Deuteronomy 32:39. Sorry for any inconvienence.

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 01:17 AM

Hi schotzy,

Okay . . . just from as careful reading as I can muster, and since no one has directly answered my question, it appears that (amongst most on this thread anyway) there is a belief that modalists can be Christian, that it's really all about one's definition of the Godhead.

I think I am getting a head full of the understanding that the concept of trinity is hard. And maybe this is why Sabellius and his spiritual descendants had to make the idea of the trinity simple. I am convinced that most members of Oneness churches are fully unaware of what their church teaches about this doctrine and would spout only what their leaders say (as would, of course, churches where the trinity is a given).

Just reading this entire thread makes me comfortable as a trinitarian in a Oneness church. It's an immense topic. Will God prevent Oneness believers from entering heaven? I don't see it. But perhaps someone has a comment.
Best I could figure out...

The basic issue is that the mainstream churches consider oneness believers as idol worshipers, worshipping the image and not God.

As I understand it: Oneness believers put emphasis on worshiping the Son. I'm a bit vague on this: but it seems in his humanity the Son is viewed as a different personage (thus he sits on the right hand of God), but in his divinity the Son and the Father are the same person. Ultimately, it seems oneness believers would say there was when the Son was not, which is contrary to mainstream thought.

Orthodoxy (RC & EO) say there are three persons in a single Godhead, with the Son and Spirit receiving their divinity from the Father. Which seems to be almost the same idea as oneness believers. However, as all the creeds state: the Father is the one and only true God, the Logos/Son is God from God, eternally existing and the Holy Spirit proceeding (RC=From the Father & the Son; EO=From the Father through the Son). To keep it simple: the basic formula is - worship the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit.

The theology gets a bit complicated from here. Largely depends on which Trinity model is followed. In the pyschological trinity (Augustine et al), the three are bound in love and indisquishable in all things. In the economic trinity there is unity but a heirarchy. Then there is the subtlies of the social and immanent trinities.

As modalists follow the teaching of Christ, they are as Christian as JWs, Mormons, Ebonites etc. The bigger questions: are they participants in the adoption? Do they imitate Christ (who did Jesus worship)?

andiwashere

October 26th 2005, 02:28 AM

Hey Sparko,

I hope that you, like me, think the whole bible is true and that it must reconcile within itself
I do.

..God did NOT make the rule that the animal sacrifices would forgive the sins in the Old Testament.
I'm interested how you reconcile this with OT versus. As an example... Lev 5:10 And he shall offer the second [for] a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

I pointed out Hebrew 10 specifically SAYS that the animals did not forgive the sins
Actually, as you quoted Hebrew 10:4 'because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.'

I don't recall claiming that animal sacrifices took away sins. I argued that animal sacrifices, given with a circumcised heart, were recognized by God and allowed to cover sin debts. Further...they led to forgiveness of sin, by God (as testified in numerous OT versus).

If, as Hebrew 10:4 implies, the sacrifice of Jesus has 'taken away sins', I don't think you or I would take this to mean sin no longer exists. It merely means that sin is no longer imputed (unless it's willful) to the faithful. So, sin (as a debt - not as an action) has been eternally taken away from the faithful.

Job is another interesting example. He is said to be 'perfect' yet, he admits to youthful sins. How do you think he became 'perfect'?

Anyways, that's how I reconcile Hebrews.

Thank you Sparko.

Cheers,
Andi

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 03:17 AM

I guess your focus is on "the Spirit of God" moving upon the face of the waters and somehow you make a correlation between that and the Logos. What is your reasoning?

That in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1, Jn 1:1). The Logos was with God in the beginning (Jn 1:1-2, Prv 8:22). That God created all things by the Logos (Jn 1:3, Col 2:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Prv 8:22-30)

The utterance that said “let there be light” verse 3- was that the word of God? John 1:1 said the word was God- he believed it was the word of God that made the utterance “let there be light” Of course the father is the source, that’s what he is, but who made the utterance, if it was God then it’s the word of God- remember 1Cor 8:6- Father is the source but through who? Without the utterance of His word nothing came to be. If God spoke then it is his word/ logos- as John said the Logos was God.

Proverbs 8 – Consider the logos/word of God – the utterance that sounded “let there be light” is spirit and a spirit is without form, shape or image, Proverb 8 simply show that the word of God was personified- formed, brought fourth. This explains how “man” be created in the image of God- the logos/God was personified, formed, that is why we are in the image if God, not another god.

Do we have any problems so far? If No, l will proceed to the spirit of God moving across the face of the water- if Yes, then we talk about our differences, but stick to the beginning- not JW view

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 05:07 AM

The utterance that said “let there be light” verse 3- was that the word of God?In trinitarian theology the Logos is not generally perceived as an utterance, as a spoken word. To be pointed an utterance, cannot utter. So at this stage I'm not following your thinking.

John 1:1 said the word was God- he believed it was the word of God that made the utterance “let there be light” The word Logos can be translated in a lot of ways. Reason, wisdom being the most dominate, but as Jerome and others considered "Word", the best rendering, I won't disagree. Especially given the OT/Jewish thought in which the Logos/Wisdom is understood. The theological consensus is that John did not view the Logos as an utterance (You are proposing a Sabellian/oneness teaching).

Of course the father is the source, that’s what he is, but who made the utteranceThe Father

if it was God then it’s the word of God- remember 1Cor 8:6- Father is the source but through who?by the Son/Wisdom/Logos. Read Gen 1, notice God spoke/commanded, someone did something/something happened, and then it was so.

Without the utterance of His word nothing came to be.That is very dangerous theological ground, very humanist in presentation.

You are containing God, making him as the creature, God cannot be limited.

God only needs to will for it to be so. As I said above: Read Gen 1, notice God spoke/commanded, someone did something/something happened, and then it was so.

If God spoke then it is his word/ logos- as John said the Logos was God.Is my spoken/written word, me? Or a reflection of my thoughts/purpose that I present to you, so you might know me? This is the majority witness of scripture in regards to God. The Jews knew God through the Law and the prophets, whereas we know the Father through the revelation delivered by his Son, Jesus Christ!

Proverbs 8 – Consider the logos/word of God – the utterance that sounded “let there be light” is spiritHave you scriptural support for your interpretation that "the utterance that sounded 'let there be light' is spirit"?

In the KJV 8:22 refers to "wisdom", in the Hebrew bible it is understood as "the Torah", yes both might be construed as spiritual but are they spirit entities?

and a spirit is without form, shape or imageAnd yet the Logos is the image of God.

Proverb 8 simply show that the word of God was personified- formed, brought fourth. This explains how “man” be created in the image of God- the logos/God was personified, formed, that is why we are in the image if God, not another god.I think we agree.

Do we have any problems so far? If No, l will proceed to the spirit of God moving across the face of the water- if Yes, then we talk about our differences, but stick to the beginning- not JW view
I'm not a JW and I've presented to you the view of majority opinion - RC, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Reformed Churches.

Remember, I believe that the Son is begotten of the Father and uncreated, fully divine by the will of the Father, which accords with all the mainstream creeds.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 05:27 AM

In trinitarian theology the Logos is not generally perceived as an utterance, as a spoken word. To be pointed an utterance, cannot utter. So at this stage I'm not following your thinking.

The word Logos can be translated in a lot of ways. Reason, wisdom being the most dominate, but as Jerome and others considered "Word", the best rendering, I won't disagree. Especially given the OT/Jewish thought in which the Logos/Wisdom is understood. The theological consensus is that John did not view the Logos as an utterance (You are proposing a Sabellian/oneness teaching).

The Father

by the Son/Wisdom/Logos. Read Gen 1, notice God spoke/commanded, someone did something/something happened, and then it was so.

That is very dangerous theological ground, very humanist in presentation.

You are containing God, making him as the creature, God cannot be limited.

God only needs to will for it to be so. As I said above: Read Gen 1, notice God spoke/commanded, someone did something/something happened, and then it was so.

Is my spoken/written word, me? Or a reflection of my thoughts/purpose that I present to you, so you might know me? This is the majority witness of scripture in regards to God. The Jews knew God through the Law and the prophets, whereas we know the Father through the revelation delivered by his Son, Jesus Christ!

Can you provide scripture that supports your interpretation? In the KJV 8:22 refers to "wisdom", in the Hebrew bible it is understood as "the Torah", yes both might be construed as spiritual but are they spirit entities, or more particularly reflections of God?

And yet the Logos is the image of God.

I think we agree.

I'm not a JW and I've presented to you the view of majority opinion - RC, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Reformed Churches.

Remember, I believe that the Son is begotten of the Father and uncreated, fully divine by the will of the Father, which accords with all the mainstream creeds.

IF God said the word then it is the word of God, and as John said it was God.

Kind Regrads
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 05:37 AM

IF God said the word then it is the word of God, and as John said it was God.John said "theos en o Logos". He didn't say the Word of God is God. There is a difference. By illustration: I am not my word, but my word is all that is known to you about me.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 05:55 AM

John said "theos en o Logos". He didn't say the Word of God is God. There is a difference. By illustration: I am not my word, but my word is all that is known to you about me.

Your word is not someone’s else’s word and stop playing games. If God spoke then it the word of God as John said, "the word was God"

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth ... For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. (Psalm 33:6,9) Nothing without his Word. How else could all things be through the logos/word.

If you want to disccuss the fine- If you don't want to want to, then fine again- but stop saying things like- My word is not me "Hey guy's l did not say it some else did"

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 06:26 AM

Your word is not someone’s else’s word and stop playing games.See below.

No games. I'm quoting literal scrpture. Not KJV rendering but the original.

If God spoke then it is the word of GodSee below.

Very true. God's spoken word is an image of him, and is the word of God.

as John said, "the word was God"So the KJV & NIV might have it but such literalism doesn't accord with the meaning of the original Greek.

(Of note all scholars of kione Greek disagree with the NWT, KJV, NIV and similar literalist translations. Not on religious grounds but scholarly grounds. The Word was god or God, does not convey the meaning of Theos en o Logos.)

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. (Psalm 33:6,9) Nothing without his Word. How else could all things be through the logos/word."And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good." (Gen 1:3-4). The Psalmist took Genesis literally, but not in your context. Using your method of literal analysis we have to assume that the God who said "let there be light", didn't know it was going to be good!

Proverbs 8, says God created all things by his Wisdom. The Logos is understood as the wisdom and power of God. Also see Ps 104 (esp vs24), 136:5; Prv 3:19; Jer 10:12 etc.

If you want to disccuss the fine- If you don't want to want to, then fine again- but stop saying things like- My word is not me "Hey guy's l did not say it some else did"I simply tried to use rationale. The scriptures are not encrypted, they are very understandable. You don't know how tall I am, the color of my skin, anything about me other than what you perceive through the words I write. The words are mine but they are not my person - people reading them will have their own perceptions about who or what I am, and what my personality and being might be.

Please don't spit as the viper because I challenge your interpretations of scripture. A.Paul does say that "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" (1 Cor 1:27) and time may show, one or both of us as very wise.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 06:49 AM

See below.

No games. I'm quoting literal scrpture. Not KJV rendering but the original.

Very true. God's spoken word is an image of him, and is the word of God.

So the KJV & NIV might have it but such literalism doesn't accord with the meaning of the original Greek.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good." (Gen 1:3-4). The Psalmist took Genesis literally, but not in your context. Using your method of literal analysis we have to assume that the God who said "let there be light", didn't know it was going to be good!

Proverbs 8, says God created all things by his Wisdom. The Logos is understood as the wisdom and power of God. Also see Ps 104 (esp vs24), 136:5; Prv 3:19; Jer 10:12 etc.

I simply tried to use rationale. The scriptures are not encrypted, they are very understandable. You don't know how tall I am, the color of my skin, anything about me other than what you perceive through the words I write. The words are mine but they are not my person - people reading them will have their own perceptions about who or what I am, and what my personality might be.

Please don't spit as the viper because I challenge your interpretations of scripture. A.Paul does say that "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" (1 Cor 1:27) and time may show, one or both of us as very wise.

You are playing games- end of story. you cannot refute the written sciptures.

Kind regards
John from ebla

D'bongs

October 26th 2005, 06:52 AM

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 06:59 AM

You are playing games- end of story. you cannot refute the written sciptures.I don't try to. I quote them and rely on them in full. I wished you might have done the same instead of relying on your own opinion.

A wise man runs when facing defeat. I hope I am seen as the foolish one ;-)

"To him who alone does great wonders, for his mercy endues forever. To him who by his wisdom made the heavens; for his mercy endue forever." Prv 136:4-5.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 07:07 AM

I don't try to. I quote them and rely on them in full. I wished you might have done the same instead of relying on your own opinion.

A wise man runs when facing defeat. I hope I am seen as the foolish one ;-)

Nothing without his Word. How else could all things be through the logos/word ?

If God spoke then it was the word of God just as John 1:1 said.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 07:14 AM

Nothing without his Word.
Jeremiah 10:12-13 "He has made the earth by his power; he has established the world by his wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens by his understanding. When he utters his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens and he causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth..." Cp: Gen 1.

How else could all things be through the logos/word ?Word is an inadequate translation of Logos. Check any Lexicon, there is no single world in English to express it.

If God spoke then it was the word of God just as John 1:1 said.But as you'll note Jeremiah says God created via several agencies, not just via a spoken word. A.Paul equates the Son with the power and wisdom of God. A.John reveals the Son as the Logos=reason,wisdom,understanding, word etc etc etc

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 07:25 AM

Jeremiah 10:12-13 "He has made the earth by his power; he has established the world by his wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens by his understanding. When he utters his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens and he causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth..." Cp: Gen 1.

Yes, you quoted Paul before "Jesus/logos is the power and wisdom of God" Exactly as the above verse say. Then Rev 19:13 He is called the Logos of God- Through him is all.

If God spoke then it is the word of God just as John1:1 said.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 07:47 AM

Yes, you quoted Paul before "Jesus/logos is the power and wisdom of God" Exactly as the above verse say. Then Rev 19:13 He is called the Logos of God- Through him is all.

If God spoke then it is the word of God just as John1:1 said.Rev 19:13. o logos toy theos. Note vs15; does the Son of God, the Lamb, literally have a sharp sword going out of his mouth, that he should smote the nations?

In terms of John 1:1, have another read of Jeremiah 10:12-13 "He has made the earth by his power; he has established the world by his wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens by his understanding. When he utters his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens and he causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth..."

Note several agencies are involved in creation, not just via the spoken word. Which is easy to reconcile when one understands the Lexicon defines Logos as reason,wisdom,understanding,word etc etc etc

However, Rev 19:13-15 appears to be literally talking about "The Word of God" by which all are judged.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 08:07 AM

Rev 19:13. o logos toy theos. Note vs15; does the Son of God, the Lamb, literally have a sharp sword going out of his mouth, that he should smote the nations?

Read Peter, it tells you what is.

You are pick nicking every litlle thing and avoiding the facts- if God spoke then it is the word of God just as John1:1 said- how else are all things through the Logos?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Daco

October 26th 2005, 08:44 AM

Hi John From Ebla,

I'm trying to understand your remark. To date I've never given oneness theology much thought so please bear with me while I try to understand your view and please correct where I've misunderstood the oneness teaching/s I've read on the net. In oneness belief the Father is immanent, eternally residing in the heavens, and in time emanated himself into flesh (as in light from light) to become Jesus, who is Son of God in regards to his humanity. So in tangibility, and in regards to his humanity, there was when the Son was not but as the Word he has eternally pre-existed in potentiality within God, who emanates his Word from time to time in his self revelation to his creation. So Jesus, having God fully indwelling in him and being fully man, being sustained by the Father (as in light from light), it can be said that the incarnated Father died on the cross. Is that close?

Must admit, it is quite a tidy explanation of how Jesus is God, the hypostatic union and even accords with that he was resurrected, ascended and sits on the right hand side of God. Though it does seem to present a problem with there being two individuals: one being absolute God the source of all things and the other simultaneously being fully absolute God and fully man. But if as you stated in another post "The father and Son are the one God Spirit" and as I replied "Given that the Father and Son are shown in scripture to be in total unity (of the same spirit) I can go along with that". Although I do see it as heading towards a trinity=tri-equal explanation as opposed to a tri-unity view of things. To some extent I think our thinking is similar. Most differences being in the fine print :-]

Just thinking aloud. Your observations are welcome...

Since A.John related that the Father was in the Son, and the Son was in the Father, I guess in a sense you might say on this evidence both died. However, from Mt 27:46 one gets the impression that the Father was not indwelling some time before Jesus expired. So logically only his humanity died on the cross. Given, sin entered the world through one man, and it was necessary for a perfect man to die for our atonement, and scripture clearly speaks of and distinguishes between the Spirit of God (which dwells) and the Spirit of Christ (his natural human spirit) then the sacrifice would be valid as the man died in his entirety. That is tidy also and (except for your post) would resolve the issue of did God die.

I'm assuming you accept the orthodoxy definition of Jesus as a type of hybrid (God+man=Jesus), and God did not simply indwell in Christ but apart from his spirituality was a component of his physicality. Given that, if Jesus only died in his humanity his sacrifice would be invalid, as it would have been imperfect. That is: As God/man, he needed to die as God/man.

In Acts 3:13-18 A.Peter clearly identifies the God of the OT as having "glorified his Son, Jesus" whom the Jews killed, which seems to differentiate the two. So YHWH is the Father and Jesus the Son. Thus they are two individualities in their temporal existence but one in their spiritual existence.

I'm honestly interested in understanding your views and having a fruitful discussion.

All the best.

No, this is not an accurate explanation of Oneness theology. I am Oneness and God, the Spirit (Father, Holy Ghost, whatever you call Him) cannot die. The man Jesus (flesh and blood) died. It was the Spirit that brought Him back to life on the third day. The only differentiation in the Father and the Son is the difference between Spirit and flesh. Jesus was the eternal God of the Old Testament born in human form. He was all God and He was all man...a unique combination to say the least. As a man, He hungered, thirsted, slept, etc. and as God He (working through the instrumentation of the flesh) healed the sick, raised the dead, calmed the storm, forgave sin, etc. It was not one god sending another god to die for sin. It was the only true God becoming one of us to die in our place.

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 09:09 AM

Read Peter, it tells you what is.Any particular verse/section?

You are pick nicking every litlle thing and avoiding the facts. f God spoke then it is the word of God just as John1:1 saidNit picking would be to argue something (for instance) is a shade of Red. Red is Red.

I've stuck to facts. Why are you so scared of them?

Fact: Logos does not mean "said", it does not mean the spoken word. Rheemata is the usual kione word for such. See Jn 2:22 where Jesus is said to have said (rheemata). I had forgotten that fact! Just checked in "The Johannine Logos" (1972) by (the trinitarian) Gordon H Clark.

how else are all things through the Logos?
Fact: Scripture does not say God created "through" but "by" Jesus Christ (Jn 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16). That is not nit picking, it is a very important distinction.

In contrast scripture says that due to Christ's sacrifice we live "through" him.

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 09:23 AM

Hi Daco,

No, this is not an accurate explanation of Oneness theology. I am Oneness and God, the Spirit (Father, Holy Ghost, whatever you call Him) cannot die. The man Jesus (flesh and blood) died. It was the Spirit that brought Him back to life on the third day. The only differentiation in the Father and the Son is the difference between Spirit and flesh. Jesus was the eternal God of the Old Testament born in human form. He was all God and He was all man...a unique combination to say the least. As a man, He hungered, thirsted, slept, etc. and as God He (working through the instrumentation of the flesh) healed the sick, raised the dead, calmed the storm, forgave sin, etc. It was not one god sending another god to die for sin. It was the only true God becoming one of us to die in our place.I'm curious what the teaching of modern moadalist beliefs are. As yet I haven't found a consistent explanation on the net. So, if you can point me to a site that discusses it systematically I would appreciate it.

If I understand correctly (and I may not), the basic idea is Jesus was God incarnate on earth, but was just a man when he died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God and as Lamb judges the righteous and unrighteous.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 09:52 AM

Any particular verse/section?

Nit picking would be to argue something (for instance) is a shade of Red. Red is Red.

I've stuck to facts. Why are you so scared of them?

Fact: Logos does not mean "said", it does not mean the spoken word. Rheemata is the usual kione word for such. See Jn 2:22 where Jesus is said to have said (rheemata). I had forgotten that fact! Just checked in "The Johannine Logos" (1972) by (the trinitarian) Gordon H Clark.

Fact: Scripture does not say God created "through" but "by" Jesus Christ (Jn 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16). That is not nit picking, it is a very important distinction.

In contrast scripture says that due to Christ's sacrifice we live "through" him.

You said when God spoke "let there be light" it was the word of God- exactly as John 1:1 "the word was God" So if this is not the case then how are all things through the logos?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 10:12 AM

Hi John from Elba,

Correction/clarification to previous post.

Logos does not mean "said", it does not mean the spoken word. Rheemata is the usual kione word for such. See Jn 2:22 where Jesus is said to have said (rheemata). I had forgotten that fact! Just checked in "The Johannine Logos" (1972) by (the trinitarian) Gordon H Clark.At Jn 2:22 the word "eipen" is translated "said". The word "logo" is used in the verse, as ""they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had said." Logos here refers to the sentence that Jesus had spoken.

Quoting Clark: "rheema has the same root as the Latin verbum and the English word:eiroo. Logos has the root legoo. [Both] roots are almost identicle in meaning [to say, speak or tell]...it [is] indubitable that logos means a sentence, a proposition, a doctrine, an object of intellectual apprehension." John 12:48 demonstrates "He who ignores me and does not accept my words [rheemata=words] has a judge, the word [logos=doctrine] that I have spoken".

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 10:20 AM

Hi John from Elba,

Correction/clarification to previous post.

At Jn 2:22 the word "eipen" is translated "said". The word "logo" is used in the verse, as ""they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had said." Logos here refers to the sentence that Jesus had spoken.

Quoting Clark: "rheema has the same root as the Latin verbum and the English word:eiroo. Logos has the root legoo. [Both] roots are almost identicle in meaning [to say, speak or tell]...it [is] indubitable that logos means a sentence, a proposition, a doctrine, an object of intellectual apprehension." John 12:48 demonstrates "He who ignores me and does not accept my words [rheemata=words] has a judge, the word [logos=doctrine] that I have spoken".

John 1:3 All things were made and came into existence through Him

John 1:10........The world was made through him.

You said that "let there be light " was the word of God. John1:1 agrees The word was God and John 1:3 and 1:10 confirm that it was through and by the logos

Regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 10:33 AM

You said when God spoke "let there be light" it was the word of GodTo clarify: If God projects an audible sound from his mouth, then what is heard is the spoken word of God. If God projects a thought/dream, then it is the thought/dream word of God. If God writes something down, it is the written Word of God.

At Gen 1:3-4 we are told "God said (or would it be better said that he commanded) Let there be light", something occured "And God saw the light, that it was good." (Gen1:3-4)

"Word of God" occurs 46 times in the bible. And in most instances refer to the message of the Apostles/Torah/Prophets.

exactly as John 1:1 "the word was God"Or is John making the point that the Logos was with God in the beginning and by the Logos all things were made. Remember Logos does not mean speak.

So if this is not the case then how are all things through the logos?I'll repeat my last post : Scripture does not say God created "through" but "by" Jesus Christ (Jn 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16).

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 10:38 AM

John 1:3 All things were made and came into existence through Him

John 1:10........The world was made through him.

You said that "let there be light " was the word of God. John1:1 agrees The word was God and John 1:3 and 1:10 confirm that it was through and by the logosWhat translation are you using. I just checked 4 and all say "by". NWT,RSV,NEB has "through". So I looked up Strongs concordance: Seems through (2) backs my original posts nicely, thankyou. But I still prefer "By" (1c)..

1) through
a) of place
1) with
2) in
b) of time
1) throughout
2) during
c) of means
1) by
2) by the means of

2) through
a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
1) by reason of
2) on account of
3) because of for this reason
4) therefore
5) on this account
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1130337856-6204.html

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 10:44 AM

To clarify: If God projects an audible sound from his mouth, then what is heard is the spoken word of God. If God projects a thought/dream, then it is the thought/dream word of God. If God writes something down, it is the written Word of God.

At Gen 1:3-4 we are told "God said (or would it be better said that he commanded) Let there be light", something occured "And God saw the light, that it was good." (Gen1:3-4)

"Word of God" occurs 46 times in the bible. And in most instances refer to the message of the Apostles/Torah/Prophets.

Or is John making the point that the Logos was with God in the beginning and by the Logos all things were made. Remember Logos does not mean speak.

I'll repeat my last post : Scripture does not say God created "through" but "by" Jesus Christ (Jn 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16).

The logos was GOD John1:1 and and all things were by/ through him John1:3,10

You better start learing Greek if you want to play this game. :eek:

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 11:04 AM

The logos was GOD John1:1 and and all things were by/ through him John1:3,10. You better start learing Greek if you want to play this game.I don't play games.

If you want, we can discuss the Greek but don't bother me with silly arguments about anarthrous construction, I'm not a JW.

It might be profitable to the discussion if you could actually use more scripture in trying to prove your point. I already know you think Logos=Word (and the Word was God) from Jn 1:1-3 and God spoke (the Word of God) in Gen 1:1-3 and you correlate the two. I don't happen to have your opinion. So, maybe you can show me a scripture that says Jesus is the voice of God to support your stance. Then I can do a Berean (Acts 17:11).

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 11:32 AM

I don't play games.

If you want, we can discuss the Greek but don't bother me with silly arguments about anarthrous construction, I'm not a JW.

It might be profitable to the discussion if you could actually use more scripture in trying to prove your point. I already know you think Logos=Word (and the Word was God) from Jn 1:1-3 and God spoke (the Word of God) in Gen 1:1-3 and you correlate the two. I don't happen to have your opinion. So, maybe you can show me a scripture that says Jesus is the voice of God to support your stance. Then I can do a Berean (Acts 17:11).

l did, over and over again- The word was God and with God John 1:1 All thing through/by Him John 1::3 ,10 Paul agrees...One Lord, through and by are all things.1Cor 8:6

In the beginning is the creation of all things- God created all by his word. (Psalm 33:6,9) exactly as John 1:1,3,10 said. Loud and clear.

There is no doubt about who spoke in the beginning.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 26th 2005, 11:51 AM

l did, over and over again- The word was God and with God John 1:1 All thing through/by Him John 1::3 ,10 Paul agrees...One Lord, through and by are all things.1Cor 8:6You have only given a personal interpretation and a unsupported correlation (an opinion). And you haven't quoted any supporting scripture that says Jesus/Logos is the Voice of God, which as you keep quoting Gen 1:1-3 instead of just Gen 1:1, I perceive to be your meaning (ie: modalism). You need more than two scriptures to prove your point.

Remember I agree that all things were created by/through the Logos/wisdom/Son. The onus is on you to show the Logos is the voice of God.

In the beginning is the creation of all things- God created all by his word. Psalm 33:6,9)I notice you are very eager to avoid Jeremiah (10:12-13) who reveals God created in several aspects besides his word.

[/B]exactly as John 1:1,3,10 said. Loud and clear.To move things along: Lets accept that the text says the Logos is God. Now in John 1:1 the Logos was with God (literally. face to face), and he was with God in the beginning (=Gen 1:1). Jn 20:31 calls the Logos, the Son of God. So rationally John is saying God was "face to face" with the Son of God in the beginning. Do you have an issue with that.

There is no doubt about who spoke in the beginning.God did. That mentioned at the beginning of 1 Cor 8:6.

John from Ebla

October 26th 2005, 09:24 PM

You have only given a personal interpretation and a unsupported correlation (an opinion). And you haven't quoted any supporting scripture that says Jesus/Logos is the Voice of God, which as you keep quoting Gen 1:1-3 instead of just Gen 1:1, I perceive to be your meaning (ie: modalism). You need more than two scriptures to prove your point.

Remember I agree that all things were created by/through the Logos/wisdom/Son. The onus is on you to show the Logos is the voice of God.

I notice you are very eager to avoid Jeremiah (10:12-13) who reveals God created in several aspects besides his word.

To move things along: Lets accept that the text says the Logos is God. Now in John 1:1 the Logos was with God (literally. face to face), and he was with God in the beginning (=Gen 1:1). Jn 20:31 calls the Logos, the Son of God. So rationally John is saying God was "face to face" with the Son of God in the beginning. Do you have an issue with that.

God did. That mentioned at the beginning of 1 Cor 8:6.

Unless you can prove that things were not created by the word of God- his right hand, his own wisdom and power, then forget it- scriptures are scriptures and your views are not sciptures. :smile: You are more in line with JW :blush:

John 1:1-3,10 said all things are through/ by the word of God.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 26th 2005, 11:16 PM

"Spilling of blood" The whole of the O/T is about "Spilling of blood" Sheep, goat, dove, and/or any other form of creation, e.g. other gods.

The question is? What kind of blood is for a sanctuary. The Lord of Host (Isaiah 9:13-15) This is about the stone that you are stumbling on. :smile: What kind of blood is the Lord of host?

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

No, that's not the question. My challenge to you again:

"AFAICT your response is that God cannot make a subordinate Savior from sin. Since this seems to be the essence of your present argument, you need to show us where you have learned this in the Bible. If you cannot, I think we would have to conclude from Acts 5:31 that God has made a subordinate Savior from sin."

If there is something in Isaiah 9:13-15 (sic) that shows that God cannot make a subordinate savior from sin, then you get to explain what that is.

As it is, your method of using Isaiah 43:11 to prove that Jesus is God works as well for Othniel ben Kenaz and others (Judges 3:15; 2 Ki. 13:5; Obadiah 21). Its structure corresponds to this syllogism:

There is no Savior but God (Isa. 43:11); x is a savior (verse), therefore x is God.

This works as well with "Othniel" in place of x as it does with "Jesus." Unless pantheism is what you are into, that should disturb you as much as me. :ahem:

So clarify the argument, emend it, or discard it. Then we can move on to whatever other scriptures/arguments you wish to discuss

Regards,

alam

October 26th 2005, 11:53 PM

Hi Apostoli,

Hi Alam,

Nice to be back. All went well.

That is good to hear.

I've been going through my archives and just reread "The Trinity & Subordinationism by Kevin Giles" discussion we chatted about some time back. Just checked, there is no additions to what I have archived, which is a pity.
http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity

From time to time I look in on it too. Can't remember if I mentioned to you but they had a related thread (called "Trinity") on the Sydney Anglicans' website with some parties to the discussion as active participants (not Kevin Giles himself).

Imo, the issue is instructive of what, in the context of Homoousianism, "subordination" can mean... It either implies a relationship between the Father and the Son which is purely conventional -- both Father and Son have everything the other has, and just decided by fiat to do things they way they did, or we are thinning down the concept of "ousia."

The latter is like the analogy to the police sergeant and the constable; as human beings, they may be consubstantial, but one of them might not have the beans to advance beyond a certain level.

This latter may justifiably termed (semi) Arianism in disguise, do you think? What is the difference this and Homoiousianism, except that it removes Autotheotes as a condition of having the ousia of God, allowing us to say that the Father and the Son are one ousia, although only one of them is Autotheos? And, how much can someone thin out the concept of the divine "ousia" and remain orthodox? It seems that we could generalize it completely and say that the "ousia" of God is Being itself, but that God alone has Autousia or Self-existence.

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/C2c.htm

My current project is trying to determine what modern "oness belief" is. So far the sites I've come across haven't been helpful, "mainly this is so believe it" as opposed to concise rationalisations. Have you any references/links I might find useful?

Unfortunately, modern oneness theology is something I have never studied in much detail. But this document put out by the UPC has been around for a while, is often cited

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp

The following page has a compendium of oneness-related links (for and against), including most I have run into:

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/onenessvtrinity.html

Here is another site:

http://www.piney.com/HsPiney.html

God bless,

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 01:54 AM

No, that's not the question. My challenge to you again:

"AFAICT your response is that God cannot make a subordinate Savior from sin. Since this seems to be the essence of your present argument, you need to show us where you have learned this in the Bible. If you cannot, I think we would have to conclude from Acts 5:31 that God has made a subordinate Savior from sin."

If there is something in Isaiah 9:13-15 (sic) that shows that God cannot make a subordinate savior from sin, then you get to explain what that is.

As it is, your method of using Isaiah 43:11 to prove that Jesus is God works as well for Othniel ben Kenaz and others (Judges 3:15; 2 Ki. 13:5; Obadiah 21). Its structure corresponds to this syllogism:

There is no Savior but God (Isa. 43:11); x is a savior (verse), therefore x is God.

This works as well with "Othniel" in place of x as it does with "Jesus." Unless pantheism is what you are into, that should disturb you as much as me. :ahem:

So clarify the argument, emend it, or discard it. Then we can move on to whatever other scriptures/arguments you wish to discuss

Regards,

Sorry, Isa 8:13;15 not 9. Off- course there is- The LORD of host became the stumbling stone that you are falling over. Jesus has two natures God and man (Heb 9:14, John 1:1-3,10) there is only one savior and you are stumbling over it.

God did not subordinate savior- he subordinated the atonement/sacrifice for sin.

The word became flesh and, as per Isa 53, took on the role of a servant and bore the sins(verse 12) then read Hebrew7,8,9,10.

Unless you can prove that things were not created by the word of God- his right hand, his own wisdom and power, then- scriptures are scriptures and your views are not sciptures- God did not subordinate savior- he subordinated the atonement/sacrifice for sin.
John 1:1-3,10 said all things are through/ by the word of God. There is only One savior from sin.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 27th 2005, 02:14 AM

Hi Alam,

Thanks for the links. I'll download and wade through them.

Imo, the issue is instructive of what, in the context of Homoousianism, "subordination" can mean... It either implies a relationship between the Father and the Son which is purely conventional -- both Father and Son have everything the other has, and just decided by fiat to do things they way they did, or we are thinning down the concept of "ousia." The latter is like the analogy to the police sergeant and the constable; as human beings, they may be consubstantial, but one of them might not have the beans to advance beyond a certain level. This latter may justifiably termed (semi) Arianism in disguise, do you think? What is the difference this and Homoiousianism, except that it removes Autotheotes as a condition of having the ousia of God, allowing us to say that the Father and the Son are one ousia, although only one of them is Autotheos? And, how much can someone thin out the concept of the divine "ousia" and remain orthodox? It seems that we could generalize it completely and say that the "ousia" of God is Being itself, but that God alone has Autousia or Self-existence.I've been going through my archives, and adding to it on this topic. Seems current academic discussion is investigating Eastern vs Western theology. One RC theologian arguing that the Western models setting a foundation for atheism and oneness belief. Gravitation seems that the west is leaning back to the east to explain the trinity in a biblical way, rather than through philosophy. Once I finished my readings, I'll share with you what I have found. I'm coming to the conclusion that I am more orthodox than I had previously thought.

Unfortunately, modern oneness theology is something I have never studied in much detail.Nor had I, hence my current interest. My Interest was sparked from an article by Bowman, Robert M. Jr, in which he suggests "What sets Oneness Pentecostalism apart from other anti-trinitarian heresies is its seeming orthodoxy. Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, Oneness Pentecostals teach both that there is one God and that Jesus is fully God...Compared to many other controversial sects, Oneness Pentecostalism appears quite orthodox in many respects. If the Oneness doctrine is heretical, then, it must be admitted to be a much subtler error than that of many current heresies. Subtlety does not, however, make an error less dangerous, but more, since the subtler the error the more people are likely to fall for it (people are more apt to accept a criminal's conterfeit bills as real money than they are Monopoly bills). This potential danger makes it all the more important that the Oneness teaching be evaluated on the basis of Scripture."
http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=658

All the best.

alam

October 27th 2005, 02:20 AM

Sorry, Isa 8:13;15 not 9. Off- course there is- The LORD of host became the stumbling stone that you are falling over. Jesus has two natures God and man (Heb 9:14, John 1:1-3,10) there is only one savior and you are stumbling over it.

God did not subordinate savior- he subordinated the atonement/sacrifice for sin.

The word became flesh and, as per Isa 53, took on the role of a servant and bore the sins(verse 12) then read Hebrew7,8,9,10.

Unless you can prove that things were not created by the word of God- his right hand, his own wisdom and power, then- scriptures are scriptures and your views are not sciptures- God did not subordinate savior- he subordinated the atonement/sacrifice for sin.
John 1:1-3,10 said all things are through/ by the word of God. There is only One savior from sin.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Well, we can discuss those scriptures again, after the matter at hand is resolved. The problem is whether you will vindicate your argument from Isaiah 43:11, since nowhere, at least in the scriptures you cited above, do I see a statement that God cannot make a subordinate savior from sin. You are saying that He did not rather than He can not, which is a different claim. :smile:

Regards,

apostoli

October 27th 2005, 02:28 AM

Unless you can prove that things were not created by the word of God- his right hand, his own wisdom and power, then forget it- scriptures are scriptures and your views are not sciptures...John 1:1-3,10 said all things are through/ by the word of God.Numerous times I have agreed with you that God created all things by/through the Logos. As you mention and I agree God created by/through wisdom and power as A.Paul also tells us. So I find it strange, that you don't accept, what any Lexicon will tell you, Logos does not mean a literal "spoken word", it is more particularly the teaching/message/sentence. So your appeal to Gen 1:3 would have the Logos being the words "Let there be light"

You are more in line with JWIf so then the JW must be mainstream. In terms of your appeal to Gen 1:1-3 as opposed to correlating Jn 1:1 with Gen 1:1, I've presented the orthodox view - the teaching of RC, EO, Anglican and Reformed churches, fully supported by scripture.

Reviewing your previous posts I perceive you are arguing on the basis of oneness belief (the Logos is not an individuality within the Godhead but merely the breathe of God (aka your appeal to Gen 1:2-3)).

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 03:06 AM

[QUOTE=apostoli]Numerous times I have agreed with you that God created all things by/through the Logos. As you mention and I agree God created by/through wisdom and power as A.Paul also tells us. So I find it strange, that you don't accept, what any Lexicon will tell you, Logos does not mean a literal "spoken word", it is more particularly the teaching/message/sentence. So your appeal to Gen 1:3 would have the Logos being the words "Let there be light".[/QUOTE

In that case you agree with John 1:1-3,10
The word was GOD- the word became Flesh, and when it did, it was still God :smile: - no small "g" as JW say.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 27th 2005, 03:27 AM

Numerous times I have agreed with you that God created all things by/through the Logos. As you mention and I agree God created by/through wisdom and power as A.Paul also tells us. So I find it strange, that you don't accept, what any Lexicon will tell you, Logos does not mean a literal "spoken word", it is more particularly the teaching/message/sentence. So your appeal to Gen 1:3 would have the Logos being the words "Let there be light".

In that case you agree with John 1:1-3,10
The word was GOD- the word became Flesh, and when it did, it was still God :smile: - no small "g" as JW say.The big G, small g argument is not what John 1:1 is all about. As the NEB says "what God was the Logos (Word) was", Paul says he was the image of God, the form (morphe) of God. Not that he was autotheos but as A.John concludes - the Son of God.

But to clarify: I accord with the orthodox creeds (eg: Nicene) in that there is One God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Logos made flesh, God from God, eternally begotten and in the Holy Spirit eternally procceding from the Father through the Son. The Father, autotheos and the Son and Spirit subsisting in the Father.

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 05:13 AM

The big G, small g argument is not what John 1:1 is all about. As the NEB says "what God was the Logos (Word) was", Paul says he was the image of God, the form (morphe) of God. Not that he was autotheos but as A.John concludes - the Son of God.

But to clarify: I accord with the orthodox creeds (eg: Nicene) in that there is One God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Logos made flesh, God from God, eternally begotten and in the Holy Spirit eternally procceding from the Father through the Son. The Father, autotheos and the Son and Spirit subsisting in the Father.

Unless you’re a fanatical Catholic that believes Mary is the eternal mother that was with the eternal father (God), l don’t understand or even seen in scriptures the word “eternally begotten”

I only know that "only begotten son" ( monogenes) is applied to his human birth, in the same sense as it applies to Isaac, begotten by Abraham. Isaac, the UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND son of Abraham- he was the "son of promise" and Ishmael was not. That certainly made Isaac the only unique and special. (monogenes) son. The same applies to the human side of Jesus- the only unique and special son of God, fully human- God nature. (God was in Christ)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 27th 2005, 05:38 AM

Unless you’re a fanatical Catholic that believes Mary is the eternal mother that was with the eternal father (God), l don’t understand or even seen in scriptures the word “eternally begotten” Firstly, no I don't view Mary as the mother of God. Though you obviously don't know or understand the RC theology. Aside from the RC, all orthodox groups support the "eternally begotten" doctrine on the basis of the OT wisdom terminology (although Calvin does border on tritheism, as he would have the Son autotheos).

You do seem to have a humanist view of things! There are creatures in nature that can reproduce without needing insemination, and in fact there are creatures in nature that do alternate sex (alternating as male/female or female/male). In fact there are creatures that reproduce by cell division. But though God has provided examples in nature, I don't perceive his generation of the Son in a humanist view. The Son is from the Father, and as the NT testifies pre-existant before creation. How he is generated is not revealed, but that he was generative from the Father is emphatic in the scriptures. The theological conclusion that if the Son is God, is eternal and is of God, then he is eternally generative. But that is just techno speach to say the Logos is truely the Son of God.

I only know that "only begotten son" ( monogenes) is applied to his human birth, in the same sense as it applies to Isaac, begotten by Abraham. Isaac, the UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND son of Abraham- he was the "son of promise" and Ishmael was not. That certainly made Isaac the only unique and special. (monogenes) son. The same applies to the human side of Jesus- the only unique and special son of God, fully human- God nature. (God was in Christ)In regards to your Ishmael/Isaac analogy be aware, you are reducing the Son of God to being just a man, with God residing in him. Which is one of the oldest refuted herecies. Consequently, you yourself refute eveything you have previously said.

I can only assume you are a Sabellian (oneness believer) and not a trinitarian. If the first I understand your arguements, if the later you need to do some homework and understand the theology of your religion.

alam

October 27th 2005, 06:01 AM

Hi Alam,

Thanks for the links. I'll download and wade through them.

I've been going through my archives, and adding to it on this topic. Seems current academic discussion is investigating Eastern vs Western theology. One RC theologian arguing that the Western models setting a foundation for atheism and oneness belief. Gravitation seems that the west is leaning back to the east to explain the trinity in a biblical way, rather than through philosophy. Once I finished my readings, I'll share with you what I have found. I'm coming to the conclusion that I am more orthodox than I had previously thought.

Thanks Apostoli, I would appreciate that. As for the philosophy, isn't the Western attitude supposed to have been the uncomplicated "plain belief" that was a needed counterweight to Eastern, Logos theology, Origenism etc? You know what I think, but that's how they spin it in a lot of what I have read (from Western writers of course). Oneness literature seems to be very assertive in that way.

God bless

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 07:26 AM

Firstly, no I don't view Mary as the mother of God. Though you obviously don't know or understand the RC theology. Aside from the RC, all orthodox groups support the "eternally begotten" doctrine on the basis of the OT wisdom terminology (although Calvin does border on tritheism, as he would have the Son autotheos)..

That is why l wrote if- l understand begotten in 4 different languages but not eternally begotten, Proverb 8 does not use the word (begotten), so l do not know where you get begotten for the Word of God (John 1:1) It is use in the New testament for the Human born Son.

In regards to your Ishmael/Isaac analogy be aware, you are reducing the Son of God to being just a man, with God residing in him. Which is one of the oldest refuted herecies. Consequently, you yourself refute eveything you have previously said

I can only assume you are a Sabellian (oneness believer) and not a trinitarian. If the first I understand your arguements, if the later you need to do some homework and understand the theology of your religion.

He was born human and his humanity side is as all humans- Ishmael/Isaac analogy is the way "monogenes" is applied to both Isaac and Jesus. Isaac was not the only begotten son, but was the only UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND son of Abraham.

Jesus the man was not the only human born without a human Father and called ‘Son of God’ Adam was without a human father and called Son of God- that is why Jesus is the only begotten "monogenes” son of God- UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND l am not degrading him- l give him the honor due ‘ My LORD, My GOD “ One of the KIND no other

As Paul say’s “great is the mystery he was made visible in human flesh. 1 Tim 3:16

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 27th 2005, 09:02 AM

l understand begotten in 4 different languages but not eternally begotten, Proverb 8 does not use the word (begotten), so l do not know where you get begotten for the Word of God (John 1:1) It is use in the New testament for the Human born Son.Colossians says the Son "is before all things" (vs13+17). The technical language of the west is "eternally begotten", while in the east "begotten from eternity". I prefer the expression used in eastern theology. Which simply implies (agrees with the creeds) that beyond times and ages as Proverbs 8:22 suggests.

He was born human and his humanity side is as all humans- Ishmael/Isaac analogy is the way "monogenes" is applied to both Isaac and Jesus. Isaac was not the only begotten son, but was the only UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND son of Abraham.Pointedly, Jesus was not conceived in the same way as other humans. There was no insemination.

The legalism of monogenes which you present would imply that God goes back on his word, as God had already declared Israel as his firstborn "earthly" Son.

The bigger question of John 1:18, is how is the only begotten Son (or as other mss has it the only begotten God) is in the bosom of the Father.

Jesus the man was not the only human born without a human Father and called ‘Son of God’ Adam was without a human father and called Son of God- that is why Jesus is the only begotten "monogenes” son of God- UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND l am not degrading him- l give him the honor due ‘ My LORD, My GOD “ One of the KIND no otherAdam was created from the dust of the ground. Either you are saying Jesus is a creation or suggesting pagan thought where God came down from heaven had a bit of fun. Droped his sperm and out popped a hybrid. The Son of God in scripture is not viewed as a fleshly prodigy of a lustful god!

As Paul say’s “great is the mystery he was made visible in human flesh. 1 Tim 3:16 Indeed great is the mystery of the Christian religion: that God made himself manifest through his Son, that the Son of God was obedient to the will of his Father (even unto death), as witnessed before the angels. The Son and his message is preached to all mankind, so that they may believe in him as the propitiatory sacrifice and know that he sits at the right hand of God to judge the righteous and unrighteous.

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 09:35 AM

Colossians says the Son "is before all things" (vs13+17). The technical language of the west is "eternally begotten", while in the east "begotten from eternity". I prefer the expression used in eastern theology. Which simply implies (agrees with the creeds) that beyond times and ages as Proverbs 8:22 suggests.

Pointedly, Jesus was not conceived in the same way as other humans. There was no insemination.

The legalism of monogenes which you present would imply that God goes back on his word, as God had already declared Israel as his firstborn "earthly" Son.

The bigger question of John 1:18, is how is the only begotten Son (or as other mss has it the only begotten God) is in the bosom of the Father.

Adam was created from the dust of the ground. Either you are saying Jesus is a creation or suggesting pagan thought where God came down from heaven had a bit of fun. Droped his sperm and out popped a hybrid. The Son in scripture is not viewed as a fleshly prodigy of a lustful god!

Indeed great is the mystery of the Christian religion: that God made himself manifest through his Son, that the Son of God was obedient to the will of his Father (even unto death), as witnessed before the angels. The Son and his message is preached to all mankind, so that they may believe in him as the propitiatory sacrifice and know that he sits at the right hand of God to judge the righteous and unrighteous.

NB: mss evidence is split on whether the opening to 1 Tim 3:16 is "God" or "He" That is some mss have the opening letter with a stroke through it, most don't.

Interesting, you seem to be babbling along with your own pre- suppositions- l never put ”God” l just put He-but "He is a singular personal pronoun "one" that is invisible, and became visible- The word was God and with God John 1:1

There is only one God, that is why it's "He"

There is no eternally begotten in Proverb 8- it is your pre- supposition that does not exist in scriptures.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 09:44 AM

No non-trin response to http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1241102&postcount=1 ?

They cannot respond- they just babble with things that are not in scriptures.

"MY LORD MY GOD" clearly wirtten.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 27th 2005, 10:31 AM

There is no eternally begotten in Proverb 8- it is your pre- supposition that does not exist in scriptures.I'll admit the phrase "eternally begotten" is not specifically in scripture but theologically assumed as implied. But as I said I go more for the Eastern technical phraseology "Begotton from eternity". After all Prv 8:22 says God possessed me, in the beginning of his ways, which we agree correlates to the Logos who became flesh.

As you are obviously a follower of Sabellian thought, I comprehend your natural prejudices. However, scripture plainly states that: by the Son all things were created and the Son is before all things (Col 1:13-17). Now the Son couldn't have created anything if he didn't exist before he became flesh. Could he?

Interesting, you seem to be babbling along with your own pre- suppositionsIf I babble, I apologise but at least, I try to use facts and scriptures instead of self opinion. I'm happy to accept that you have the insight of the wise (1 Cor 1:27). But it saddens me that you avoid scripture and when insecure detract from our conversation by resorting to denigrating remarks. It would be more profitable if you attempted to guide me to scriptures (more than just Jn 1:1-3 & Gen 1:1-3) which show my error, as someone with the Spirit of Christ would be inclined to do.

l never put ”God” l just put He-but "He is a singular personal pronoun "one" that is invisible, and became visible- The word was God and with God John 1:1 There is only one God, that is why it's "He"I agree there is only one God revealed in the scriptures. And I agree 1 Tim 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh". It was the whole point of the Logos becoming flesh as "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he has declared him." (Jn 1:18)

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 11:02 AM

I'll admit the phrase "eternally begotten" is not in scripture. But as I said I go more for the Eastern technical phraseology "Begotton from eternity". After all Prv 8:22 says God possessed me, in the beginning of his ways, which we agree correlates to the Logos who became flesh.

As you are obviously a follower of Sabellian thought, I comprehend your natural prejudices. However, scripture plainly states that: by the Son all things were created and the Son is before all things (Col 1:13-17). Now the Son couldn't have created anything if he didn't exist before he became flesh. Could he?

If I babble, I apologise but at least, I try to use facts and scriptures instead of self opinion. I'm happy to accept that you have the insight of the wise (1 Cor 1:27). But it saddens me that you avoid scripture and when insecure detract from our conversation by resorting to denigrating remarks. It would be more profitable if you attempted to guide me to scriptures which show my error, as someone with the Spirit of Christ would be inclined to do.

I agree there is only one God revealed in the scriptures. And I agree 1 Tim 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh". It was the whole point of the Logos becoming flesh as "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he has declared him." (Jn 1:18)

Begets means not to exist until one is begotten- where in scripture can you find the Word of God not existing. Prov 8 is one place we see "wisdom"- but it does not say begotten. ( l can use this phrase “ Did God have no wisdom until it was begotten) and l am not been rude :smile:

God is the eternal Father, meaning there has to be a son. Can you find a scriptures that say at one one time he was not a father? Consider "l am God l do not change"

Humans change, beget and die- they change. God does not change.

So what is the point you are trying to make? Perhaps you should consider the nature of what God is and not debate the Word.

PS l will respond tomorrow :sigh:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 27th 2005, 04:05 PM

They cannot respond- they just babble with things that are not in scriptures.

That is better than mishandling the scriptures, as you seem to have done with Isaiah 43:11.

Sorry, Isa 8:13;15 not 9. Off- course there is- The LORD of host became the stumbling stone that you are falling over.

What is it that does the stumbling? The word of the LORD.

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little; [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Christ spoke the word of the LORD, which stumbled the people:

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

If the LORD by His word became a stumblingblock to the children of Israel, and the bearer and subject of that word was Christ, it should be clear why both are called the stumblingblock. No need for them to be the same person or being, which is against the scriptures (John 5:31-32).

Jesus has two natures God and man (Heb 9:14, John 1:1-3,10)

Hebrews 9:14 again? Here again (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222133&postcount=74) is what I have to say about it:

"Hebrews 9:14 does not exactly say [his eternal spirit]. There is no genitive pronoun in the Greek. Judging from NA 27, a significant variant on the verse reads "holy spirit." And considering other uses of "eternal" in Hebrews (5:9; 6:2; 9:12,16), there is no need for "eternal" here to mean sempiternal."

On John 1 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)

"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God."

See Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)

While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:

In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22

The chapter also calls the Logos monogenēs. The -genēs suffix is of that same root and the term can mean "uniquely-begotten" or "uniquely-generated," as autogenēs means "self-produced" (Liddell & Scott 7th ed.).

The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28)

there is only one savior and you are stumbling over it.

No, by His will and power, God Almighty made Jesus our Lord, God, and Savior (Acts 2:36; 5:31; Psa. 45:6-7). That is what natural Israel stumbled at, and you are stumbling too

The word became flesh and, as per Isa 53, took on the role of a servant and bore the sins(verse 12) then read Hebrew7,8,9,10.

This is correct, but is not even in dispute.

Unless you can prove that things were not created by the word of God- his right hand, his own wisdom and power,

Christ was made wisdom of God and power of God (1 Cor. 1:24,30). From this we can infer that God had His own power whereby He made Christ what he is. This is shown in the scriptures:

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

This is the eternal power of God which is perceived through the things made (Rom. 1:20) -- primarily through the first and chiefest of them, the Logos

The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.

Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and in him all things subsist.

So now back to that argument you were trying to foist on us from Isaiah 43:11.

Regards

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 10:19 PM

That is better than mishandling the scriptures, as you seem to have done with Isaiah 43:11.

What is it that does the stumbling? The word of the LORD.

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little; [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Christ spoke the word of the LORD, which stumbled the people:

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

If the LORD by His word became a stumblingblock to the children of Israel, and the bearer and subject of that word was Christ, it should be clear why both are called the stumblingblock. No need for them to be the same person or being, which is against the scriptures (John 5:31-32).

Hebrews 9:14 again? Here again (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222133&postcount=74) is what I have to say about it:

"Hebrews 9:14 does not exactly say [his eternal spirit]. There is no genitive pronoun in the Greek. Judging from NA 27, a significant variant on the verse reads "holy spirit." And considering other uses of "eternal" in Hebrews (5:9; 6:2; 9:12,16), there is no need for "eternal" here to mean sempiternal."

On John 1 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)

"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God."

See Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)

While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:

In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22

The chapter also calls the Logos monogenēs. The -genēs suffix is of that same root and the term can mean "uniquely-begotten" or "uniquely-generated," as autogenēs means "self-produced" (Liddell & Scott 7th ed.).

The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28)

No, by His will and power, God Almighty made Jesus our Lord, God, and Savior (Acts 2:36; 5:31; Psa. 45:6-7). That is what natural Israel stumbled at, and you are stumbling too

This is correct, but is not even in dispute.

Christ was made wisdom of God and power of God (1 Cor. 1:24,30). From this we can infer that God had His own power whereby He made Christ what he is. This is shown in the scriptures:

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

This is the eternal power of God which is perceived through the things made (Rom. 1:20) -- primarily through the first and chiefest of them, the Logos

The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.

Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and in him all things subsist.

So now back to that argument you were trying to foist on us from Isaiah 43:11.

Regards

The word was God and with God John 1 :1

Christ- is the body that God tabernacled-two nature, Man and God- Of course the mam Christ spoke the word of the Lord because the "WORD GOD" became flesh. John1:1-3,10

No response yet. When did the word cease to be GOD? When it became flesh? Show the proof in scriptures- that the “Word “ cease to be God when it became flesh

(John 1:1-3,10)
So far no response-just babbling :smile:

Shalom
John from Ebla

alam

October 27th 2005, 10:25 PM

The word was God and with God John 1 :1

Christ- is the body that God tabernacled-two nature, Man and God- Of course the mam Christ spoke the word of the Lord because the "WORD GOD" became flesh. John1:1-3,10

No response yet. When did the word cease to be GOD? When it became flesh? Show the proof in scriptures- that the “Word “ cease to be God when it became flesh

(John 1:1-3,10)
So far no response-just babbling :smile:

Shalom
John from Ebla

I never said that the Logos ceased to be Theos in the incarnation. This is just a straw man. Answer the post and then answer the earlier ones and quit trying to change the subject.

John from Ebla

October 27th 2005, 10:32 PM

I never said that the Logos ceased to be Theos in the incarnation. This is just a straw man. Answer the post and then answer the earlier ones and quit trying to change the subject.

Then if God did not cease to be God when it became flesh and you agree, There is nothing to answer. He is GOD

What are you on about?

Shalom
John From Emba

alam

October 27th 2005, 10:50 PM

Then if God did not cease to be God when it became flesh and you agree, There is nothing to answer. He is GOD

What are you on about?

Shalom
John From Emba

Either you do not know the difference between Arianism and Nestorianism, or you didn't read the post. Here is a relevant portion:

"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God."

See Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)

While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:

In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22

The chapter also calls the Logos monogenēs. The -genēs suffix is of that same root and the term can mean "uniquely-begotten" or "uniquely-generated," as autogenēs means "self-produced" (Liddell & Scott 7th ed.).

The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28)

Regards :smile:

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 01:41 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Begets means not to exist until one is begottenI agree with qualification. Consider James 1:18.
Where in scripture can you find the Word of God not existing.Considering scripture is the Word of God: Nowhere.
Prov 8 is one place we see "wisdom"- but it does not say begotten.I agree.
I can use this phrase "Did God have no wisdom until it was begotten?" and I am not being rudeOne is persuaded by scripture to reason that God created in wisdom (Prv 8:22 says God possessed Wisdom as a beginning of his ways). Wisdom is the foundation of all creation. The revelation of God, that by which we know him, is seen in his creation (eg: Rom 1:20). Given the limitations of language, and from our perspective, wisdom was begat, once it was revealed to us.
God is the eternal Father, meaning there has to be a son.Agreed. The argument goes: If there was a time he was not Father, then there must have been a time the Son was not. As the Father is eternal Father, the Son must be eternally Son. As you said God isn't changeable.
Can you find a scripture that says at one time he was not a father? Consider "l am God l do not change"See previous answer, which also answers this point. Also, consider Jesus said to the Pharisees that God was not their Father. So we must consider context, of in the ways God is Father.
Humans change, beget and die- they change. God does not change.Agreed. He reveals himself progressively, but he himself does not change.
So what is the point you are trying to make?The one true God is the Father. (eg: Jn 17:3;20:17; Eph 1:3 etc)
Perhaps you should consider the nature of what God isThe nature of God in whose view? Barth,Calvin,Luther,Aquinas,Augustine,the Gregories,Athanasius,Novatian,Origen,Tertullian,scripture?
and not debate the WordI don't debate. I just state facts, obvious and emphatic in scripture; giving thanks always for all things unto our God and Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (eg: Eph 5:20, 1 Cor 8:6)

Again, to push things along. Lets accept John 1:1; 20:28; the spurious and disputed texts, as you want them, and ignore the counter texts, arguments and scholarship. Lets also ignore scripture that testifies Jesus to be the Son of God (making it refer only to his humanity) and instead have him as God the Son. Lets also accept that in the Godhead, there are three personas that exist in complete unity, working in total harmony, equal in will, power etc. Lets even assume that proof of the ontology of the trinity, while concealed in scriptures (1 Cor 2:11), can be extracted and that both the Son and Spirit are of the same substantia as the Father. As you can see, to progress our conversation, I'll concede all these things to you.

The topics I would like to discuss:
1. Are the Father, Son and Spirit just modes of revelation of God; or are they individualities, working together as one within the Godhead?
2. Are the Son and the Spirit autotheos (God of themselves); or do they derive their divinity from the Father?

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 01:50 AM

Either you do not know the difference between Arianism and Nestorianism, or you didn't read the post. Here is a relevant portion:

"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God."

See Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)

While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:

In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22

The chapter also calls the Logos monogenēs. The -genēs suffix is of that same root and the term can mean "uniquely-begotten" or "uniquely-generated," as autogenēs means "self-produced" (Liddell & Scott 7th ed.).

The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28)

Regards :smile:

We are talking about the word that was GOD with God John1:1 John is talking about Genesis 'In the Begining"

When did that Word (God) cease to be God? l am asking one thing and you are telling me other, about a man born of woman (Jesus)- this is called babbling.

No response Yet

Kind regards
John form Ebla

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 02:57 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

One is persuaded by scripture to reason that God created in wisdom (Prv 8:22 says God possessed Wisdom as a beginning of his ways). Wisdom is the foundation of all creation. The revelation of God, that by which we know him, is seen in his creation (eg: Rom 1:20). Given the limitations of language, and from our perspective, wisdom was begat, once it was revealed to us.

There is no such notion when reading Proverb 8. you will ned to prove it.

1) Wisdom is put forth as a concept- and always existed as God's wisdom.
2) It also personified- but so is God through out the scriptures- Did God beget himself because we read things like "My Hand" or "l passed by" ?Eternally begottten does not exist in the scripture.

Agreed. The argument goes: If there was a time he was not Father, then there must have been a time the Son was not. As the Father is eternal Father, the Son must be eternally Son. As you said God isn't changeable.
See previous answer, which also answers this point. Also, consider Jesus said to the Pharisees that God was not their Father. So we must consider context, of in the ways God is Father.

You are bablling to defend you point. God is revealed as "eternal Father"

You will need to find a scripture that show when he was not a Father- Consider he say's 'l do not change"
Good Luck.

The topics I would like to discuss:
1. Are the Father, Son and Spirit just modes of revelation of God; or are they individualities, working together as one within the Godhead?
2. Are the Son and the Spirit autotheos (God of themselves); or do they derive their divinity from the Father?

Point two is not biblical- there is no scipture that supports such a notion in either way you put it.

Point 1 is in part Biblical because of 'individualities"- theintensive plural with a singular pronominal suffix, "my," or "I" is revealed through out the sciptures. Genesis is a pefect example in seeing it, as is Exodus

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 03:10 AM

Hi andiwashere,

I'm not looking for a debate, just somebody and or some people to explain the reasoning.I've just re-read this thread from the beginning and noticed that noone has actually answered your question. I'll attempt to do so below.

I did some research today, and it seems the trinity was an answer to the perceived heresy of Arius (Arianism). The history in interesting, but I still don't understand the importance.Actually the formulation of the trinity dogma was a response to oneness/sabellian teaching and pre-dates the response to Arius by a lot of years. Tertuallian used the term trias (translated trinity) and identified three persona in the trias. Persona here being a legal term referring to those participating in a contract. What happened at the Nicene Council was Jesus was declare true God from true God. Arius accepted Jesus to be God from God. The Holy Spirit wasn't defined until decades later, in fact there still is no agreement (ie: west=received from the Father and the Son; east=received from the Father through the Son).

I am not currently interested in the 'salvation' importance. I'm more interested in the 'natures of God and Jesus' importance. As an example; I once heard a preacher say something like, 'If I didn't beleive in the trinity, I would not want to believe in God.' It seems the very nature of God, and Gods goodness, was wrapped up in his belief of the trinity. Is that common? If so, what is the reasoning?The ontology of God (what is his essential being) is philosophical speculation that detracts from the bible message. So far those who have posted are locked into aguing about the substantia of God, which is not revealed in scripture. However, God has revealed a lot about himself in scripture - his mind and purpose. It is in this revelation of nature that the trinity is important to us. What we learn from the doctrine of the trinity is...

It is possible and God's will, that all should act as one, putting away ones personal desires, and instead be of one mind and will unto each other, in all things. The Father, Son and Spirit are of one mind and will, bound in mutual love, as we are suppose to be. This is what differentiates the imitators of Christ (as opposed to the tags Christian/Christianity/Christendom - see Jn 14:21-24): those religions that focus on the development of the individual are not of God. Christ as preached by the apostles focused on the community; we are drawn to God and saved by God as individuals but it is the community of Christ that sustains us. Those who have the Spirit of Christ in them, imitate Christ, for he had the Spirt of God in him. The Son asked the Father to send the comforter, the Spirit who intercedes and helps us, because God knows that the spirit of the flesh is weak and needs support and encouragement. (eg: Rom 8; Jn 14:26; 1 John 4:6; Eph 4:4-6;).

Another aspect of the Trinity doctrine is it proves God is love. The Father allowed his Son to debase himself, suffer the tribulations of humanity and lay down his own life for us. The father loves us and the Son loving the Father, mutually loves us. From personal experience I know what it is like to watch a son suffer and die. Much harder than suffering yourself.

Another aspect of the Trinity doctrine is it teaches us about generousity and humilty. From the Father, the Son received all power and majesty, and unlike Satan, the Son did not puff himself but humbled himself to the will of the Father so that we would be saved.

Another aspect of the Trinity doctrine is it shows the Father as not some power mad God such as we find in other religions. The father has subjected all things to the Son, sharing (for a time) all that belongs to him. Giving the Son a name above every other name (Phil 2:9).

I could go on and on. God may persist as Spirit, but God is above all love. The Son and Spirit subsisting in and reflecting the love of the Father.

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 04:10 AM

John from Elba: Prov 8 is one place we see "wisdom"- but it does not say begotten.

apostoli: I agree.

John from Elba:I can use this phrase "Did God have no wisdom until it was begotten?" and I am not being rude

apostoli: One is persuaded by scripture to reason that God created by his wisdom (Prv 8:22 says God possessed Wisdom as a beginning of his ways). Wisdom is the foundation of all creation. The revelation of God, that by which we know him, is seen in his creation (eg: Rom 1:20). Given the limitations of language, and from our perspective, wisdom was begat, once it was revealed to us.

John from Elba: There is no such notion when reading Proverb 8. you will need to prove it.Which point? If the last; consider James 1:18 which something that pre-exists is said to be begot.

1) Wisdom is put forth as a concept- and always existed as God's wisdom.Are you suggesting that God's wisdom is not revealed in his creation? That God randomly does things with out thought or reason? That God does not use his Wisdom put keeps it secreted away?
2) It also personified- but so is God through out the scripturesAre you aware, you are making God just a personification and not a reality. I would say the scriptures personify aspects of God, so man can conceive him.

Did God beget himself because we read things like "My Hand" or "l passed by" ?I'm not aware of any scripture that suggests God posseses body parts but it does say He posseses wisdom.

Eternally begottten does not exist in the scripture.Nor does Trinity. And for that matter the ontology of God is not revealed either.

You are bablling to defend your point.Hmm. I'll leave it to the viewers of our conversation to decide who is the babbler. Don't feel threatened by my replies. It is not my purpose to refute your ideas, I'm interested in understanding why you have them. Your catechal one liners aren't helpful for this purpose.

God is revealed as "eternal Father"Your appeal to Isaiah is out of context and contradicts the Apostles: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor 4:18). "No man has seen God at any time." (1 John 4:12) "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. (John 1:18)

You will need to find a scripture that show when he was not a Father- Consider he say's 'l do not change" Good Luck.I have always agreed that God the Father, is our father.

You need to find a scripture that shows that Jesus Christ/the Logos/Son of God is ever called our Father. Good Luck.

Isaiah 9:6 doesn't fit, as Isaiah 9:7 says that Immanual will be called Everlasting Father as "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." Jesus tells us that we have one Father=God, who is his God and our God, his Father and our Father. Are you want to contradict him?

apostoli: 1. Are the Father, Son and Spirit just modes of revelation of God; or are they individualities, working as together as one within the Godhead?

Point 1 is in part Biblical because of 'individualities"- the intensive plural with a singular pronominal suffix, "my," or "I" is revealed through out the sciptures. Genesis is a pefect example in seeing it, as is ExodusWould you expand on your remark. Which aspect do you agree with.

apostoli: 2. Are the Son and the Spirit autotheos (God of themselves); or do they derive their divinity from the Father?

John from Elba:Point two is not biblical- there is no scipture that supports such a notion in either way you put it.I've given the two dominant arguments. What is your opinion?

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 04:36 AM

God does not change- if he is eternal father in scriptures and he was not in the past eternity- it would mean he changed.. God does not change so there was not a time when he was not a father. :smile:
.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 05:00 AM

God does not change- if he is eternal father in scriptures and he was not in the past eternity- it would mean he changed.. God does not change so there was not a time when he as not a father.I've agreed with you over and over again on this point.

But you seem to have locked into your view of Isa 9:6; isolating the term "everlasting Father" (KJV) as applied to Immanuel. So lets have a look at Immanuel. Firstly, he will be called "father", future tense and this is because of the zeal of the Lord of hosts vs7. Next "the Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of YHWH." (Isaiah 11:1-5).

I accept, your need to view scripture in isolation to prove to yourself your viewpoint, but I encourage you to read the message in its context. Those viewing our conversation will be doing so and you have here an opportunity to make a witness of your belief.

I would appreciate it if you would make a reply to my last post. Flaming me, just suggests that you are unable to support your opinions. I am truely interested in understanding what you believe. So far you haven't revealed it to us!

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 05:38 AM

I've agreed with you over and over again on this point.

But you seem to have locked into your view of Isa 9:6; isolating the term "everlasting Father" (KJV) as applied to Immanuel. So lets have a look at Immanuel. Firstly, he will be called "father", future tense and this is because of the zeal of the Lord of hosts vs7. Next "the Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of YHWH." (Isaiah 11:1-5).!

God does not change- if he is eternal father in scriptures and he was not in the past eternity- it would mean he changed.. God does not change so there was not a time when he as not a father. What does Isa 9:6 have to do with this?

The Father eternal, The Word eternal John 1;1-3,10The word was God and God is eternal.

I accept, your need to view scripture in isolation to prove to yourself your viewpoint, but I encourage you to read the message in its context. Those viewing our conversation will be doing so and you have here an opportunity to make a witness of your belief.

I would appreciate it if you would make a reply to my last post. Flaming me, just suggests that you are unable to support your opinions. I am truely interested in understanding what you believe. So far you haven't revealed it to us!

l beleive the bible- scriptures John 1:1-3,10 is consistent with Genesis. The word was God the word is eternal. :smile:

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 07:10 AM

Thanks Apostoli, I would appreciate that. As for the philosophy, isn't the Western attitude supposed to have been the uncomplicated "plain belief" that was a needed counterweight to Eastern, Logos theology, Origenism etc? You know what I think, but that's how they spin it in a lot of what I have read (from Western writers of course). Oneness literature seems to be very assertive in that way.Hi alam,

You know my history and the journey of discovery I have been on. Seems, though I was brought up in the western mainstream, my teachers were somewhat radical (or very conservative (depending on ones view)), theogolically, as their emphasis was always on our relationship with God the Father. Then again I was lucky to have been educated by theologians. And yet, the science of theology was not instrinsic to the teaching I received, just the simple message of the apostolic witness. So I guess I was taught in "plain belief"; which I was diverted from when younger but have come to comprehend as I mature in my understanding. You and I may disagree on some fundemental theological issues, but I trust we remain brothers in Christ, in our overall belief.

You might already have this in your archives, but today I came across "A submission by Kevin Giles to the Sydney Doctrinal Commission working on the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, May 5 2004." You might find it of interest.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:4x4z7QjBjkkJ:www.ajmd.com.au/trinity/DoctrineCommisResponse.pdf+greek+orthodox+autotheos&hl=en

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 07:16 AM

Aposloli,

Before making your next post to me, can l just point out something..

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14 . Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16

The Father eternal, The Word eternal John 1;1-3,10 The word was God and God is eternal.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 07:28 AM

God does not change- if he is eternal father in scriptures and he was not in the past eternity- it would mean he changed.. God does not change so there was not a time when he as not a father. What does Isa 9:6 have to do with this?The only place where that which became flesh, might be seen as called everlasting Father.

No where in scripture, does it say the Logos/the Son of God/Jesus Christ is our Father! Nor does it say that the Logos/the Son of God/Jesus Christ is our God!

The Father eternalYes the Father of the Logos/the Son of God/Jesus Christ, our Father is said to be eternal.

The Word eternal John 1;1-3,10The word was God and God is eternal.The text doesn't say that. Support your interpolation of opinion with scripture. Remember those that add to the word of God are erased from the book of life.

l beleive the bible- scriptures John 1:1-3,10 is consistent with Genesis. The word was God the word is eternal.Then prove it using scripture. Your opinion is as valid as mine, but scripture shows what is truth. Show me the consistence in scripture, the consistent message of scripture. Spuriously joining two bits of text, interpolating your opinion, then making a self interpretation, does not give a testimony of the consistency of scripture. Merely the consistency of your self opinion.

What is it that you believe regarding who God the Father is and who the Son of God is? State it plainly. I won't flame you for being honest.

We have viewers, it is them that will judge you, not I.

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 07:55 AM

The only place where that which became flesh, might be seen as called everlasting Father.

No where in scripture, does it say the Logos/the Son of God/Jesus Christ is our Father! Nor does it say that the Logos/the Son of God/Jesus Christ is our God!

Yes the Father of the Logos/the Son of God/Jesus Christ, our Father is said to be eternal.

The text doesn't say that. Support your interpolation of opinion with scripture. Remember those that add to the word of God are erased from the book of life.

Then prove it using scripture. Your opinion is as valid as mine, but scripture shows what is truth. Show me the consistence in scripture, the consistent message of scripture. Spuriously joining two bits of text, interpolating your opinion, then making a self interpretation, does not give a testimony of the consistency of scripture. Merely the consistency of your self opinion.

What is it that you believe regarding who God the Father is and who the Son of God is? State it plainly. I won't flame you for being honest.

We have viewers, it is them that will judge you, not I.

l just told you.

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14 . Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16as does Heb 9:14

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 07:58 AM

l just told you.

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14 . Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16as does Heb 9:14 Do you believe as A.Paul, that the Son existed, and resided with his Father before becoming flesh?

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 08:12 AM

Do you believe as A.Paul, that the Son existed, and resided with his Father before becoming flesh?

This eternal spirit that was in the flesh- Yes. Jesus the man did not exist with the father he was born-begotton.

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14. Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16 as does Heb 9:14

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 08:40 AM

This eternal spirit that was in the flesh- Yes. Jesus the man did not exist with the father he was born-begotton.

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14. Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16 as does Heb 9:14 Do you believe that the Son of God, pre-existed as a seperate entity, as the Son of God, before becoming flesh?

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 09:37 AM

Do you believe that the Son of God, pre-existed as a seperate entity, as the Son of God, before becoming flesh?

Prov 30:4 and John 3:13
The eternal spirit that was in the flesh- Yes. but not as seperate entity as in a different form of eternal spirit- only 'individuality" in the intensive plural with a singular pronominal suffix, "My," or "I"- indicating it is the same one.

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14. Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16 as does Heb 9:14

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 09:51 AM

Prov 30:4 and John 3:13
The eternal spirit that was in the flesh- Yes. but not as seperate entity as in a different form of eternal spirit- only 'individuality" in the intensive plural with a singular pronominal suffix, "My," or "I"- indicating it is the same one.

1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago.

2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born. John1:14. Paul agree with this " he was made visbale in human flesh " 1Tim 3:16 as does Heb 9:14
It is not I who judges you as in error (it is not my place) but your own words. this and your last post...
Jesus...did not exist with the father he was born-begotton. 1) Jesus the man has a beginning- he was born- begotten some 2000 years ago; 2)The Word that was God and with God John 1:1-3 was not born- begotten. It became flesh- tabernacled in the man Jesus that was born.A.John testifies that "By this know you the Spirit of God: every [person] that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every [person that does not] is not of God but is [the person] of the antichrist, as we have been warned that such should come [amoungst us]" (1 John 1:2-3).

I assume that you have a good heart. That you want to get an understanding of who God is and how he interacts in your life. Examine the scriptures to determine in your mind that you have been deceived by your teachers. I encourage you to search the scriptures with an unbiased, honest heart and find that which is true. (1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11).

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 10:13 AM

It is not I who judges you as in error (it is not my place) but your own words. this and your last post...
A.John testifies that "By this know you the Spirit of God: every [person] that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every [person that does not] is not of God but is [the person] of the antichrist, as we have been warned that such should come [amoungst us]" (1 John 1:2-3).

I assume that you have a good heart. That you want to get an understanding of who God is and how he interacts in your life. Examine the scriptures to determine in your mind that you have been deceived by your teachers. I encourage you to search the scriptures with an unbiased, honest heart and find that which is true. (1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11).

The name given to him in the O/T is Immanuel God with US
Jesus is the translated name given to him by his parent- it comes from the Hebrew Yeshua (See the book of Hosea)

Christ means anointed one- messiah. The messiah was going to be, non other, than the son of GOD- no human Father. Christ the Messiah had to come in the flesh as told in John 1:1-3-14 anyone that denies this is the anti –chirst

A Normal birth does not need to come in the flesh- they are born flesh and blood. No eternal spirit is coming into them.

You just shot yourself in the foot

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 10:21 AM

The name given to him in the O/T is Immanuel God with US
Jesus is the translated name given to him by his parent- it comes from the Hebrew Yeshua (See the book of Hosea)

Christ means anointed one- messiah. The messiah was going to be, non other, than the son of GOD- no human Father. Christ the Messiah had to come in the flesh as told in John 1:1-3-14 anyone that denies this is the anti –chirst

A Normal birth does not need to come in the flesh- they are born flesh and blood. No eternal spirit is coming into them.

You just shot yourself in the footThe anglification of Yeshua=Joshua. Don't be disingenuius. Don't detract from our topic.

A.John says he who is not anti-christ confesses that Jesus Christ, is the one who became flesh. Anyone that denies such is the anti-Christ. You have in previous posts denied that Jesus Christ had pre-existence and became flesh. You have said that only the spirit of God was manifested in the flesh.

If you want I can gather your testimony together without edit to show you what you yourself have said. If it is not what you meant to say, then articulate what it is you mean.

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 10:33 AM

The anglification of Yeshua=Joshua. Don't be disingenuius. Don't detract from our topic.

A.John says he who is not anti-christ confesses that Jesus Christ, is the one who became flesh. Anyone that denies such is the anti-Christ. You have in previous posts denied that Jesus Christ had pre-existence and became flesh. You have said that only the spirit of God was manifested in the flesh.

If you want I can gather your testimony together without edit to show you what you yourself have said. If it is not what you meant to say, then articulate what it is you mean.

The human dody did not pre- exist his spirit did See 1 Peter 1:11 Spirit of Christ = Messiah. You are twisting things around as you have done all along.

And You are wrong about "Yeshua" it the short form for Yehoshua (See the book of Hosea)

Kind regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 10:48 AM

The human body did not pre-existAgreed.

his spirit did See 1 Peter 1:11 Spirit of Christ = Messiah.Spirit of Christ=Attitude of Christ see 1 Peter 1:11.

You are twisting things around as you have do all along.Twist would imply distort. I quote within context, literally, emphatically and indisputably. And I can back the quotes I make with supportive and substantive scripture. Something absent from your posts.

And You are wrong about "Yeshua" it the short form for Yehoshua (See the book of Hosea)Yeshua=Yehoshua=Joshua. Do some study. You'll find I'm not incorrect nor imprecise. Jesus is the transliterisation of the Greek, not the anglisation of his aramaic name.

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 11:04 AM

Agreed.

Spirit of Christ=Attitude of Christ see 1 Peter 1:11.

Twist would imply distort. I quote within context, literally, emphatically and indisputably. And I can back the quotes I make with supportive and substantive scripture. Something absent from your posts.

Yeshua=Yehoshua=Joshua. Do some study. You'll find I'm not incorrect nor imprecise. Jesus is the transliterisation of the Greek, not the anglisation of his aramaic name.

Do as you please. l have always made a distinction between Jesus the man (his body that was born man) and his spirit- How your intelligence sees it means little to me. And no Peter 1:11 is not what you say.

PS. Read the O/T and see Joshua had a name changed- You are working backwads- but l don’t care about discussing names so have it your way- it means little to me.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 11:16 AM

apostoli,

l only have one question for you.

Does man have a soul, spirit and body? Can you show me any sciptures in the bible that supports soul- spirit-body.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Sparko

October 28th 2005, 11:33 AM

Hey Sparko,

I do.

I'm interested how you reconcile this with OT versus. As an example... Lev 5:10 And he shall offer the second [for] a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

The priest made the 'atonement,' through prayer and offerings. The forgiveness (taking away) of sins came through God, by the power of Christ's sacrifice. They did get forgiveness, but the animal sacrifices did not do it. They were mere symbolism of what Christ would do for us. So that when he did come to be the perfect lamb they would understand what it was he was doing.

Actually, as you quoted Hebrew 10:4 'because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.'

I don't recall claiming that animal sacrifices took away sins. I argued that animal sacrifices, given with a circumcised heart, were recognized by God and allowed to cover sin debts. Further...they led to forgiveness of sin, by God (as testified in numerous OT versus).

Right, God forgave the sins. But only because of Christ's sacrifice. If Jesus did not make the sacrifice then God could not have forgiven the sins. And no mere man could have paid for all those sins. He could only pay for his own. Only a divine being could pay for all sins for all time. Only God himself.

If, as Hebrew 10:4 implies, the sacrifice of Jesus has 'taken away sins', I don't think you or I would take this to mean sin no longer exists. It merely means that sin is no longer imputed (unless it's willful) to the faithful. So, sin (as a debt - not as an action) has been eternally taken away from the faithful.

Right. I agree. But I am saying that this happened once for all time. Jesus' sacrifice took away the punishment of all of the faithful, whether they sinned 2000 years before Christ died, or 2000 years after.

No mere man or angel could do that.

Like I said in another thread... there is lots of proof that Jesus is God.

Jesus is said to be the CREATOR of everything, and not ONE THING was created without him - John 1:3 Col 1:16-17 - yet YHWH says he did it ALL ALONE with no help - Isaiah 44:24

Jesus is called God and Savior DIRECTLY Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1249974&postcount=130

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 11:21 PM

l only have one question for you.

Does man have a soul, spirit and body? Can you show me any sciptures in the bible that supports soul- spirit-body.1 Thessalonians 5:23 comes to mind "...the very God of peace santify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

l have always made a distinction between Jesus the man (his body that was born man) and his spiritCan you expand on that.

John from Ebla

October 28th 2005, 11:41 PM

1 Thessalonians 5:23 comes to mind "...the very God of peace santify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

So man has a Body Soul an spirit- and if our spirit can be in us ( and we don't see it and we don't feel) then why it so hard for you to undertand Heb 9:14 and John 1:1-3,10,14 The Word that was God and with God was in him

Can you expand on that.

Just read the thread, and you can see above " soul, spirit, body.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 28th 2005, 11:53 PM

The name given to him in the O/T is Immanuel God with US. Jesus is the translated name given to him by his parent- it comes from the Hebrew Yeshua (See the book of Hosea)
At Matt 1:23 it says "[people] shall call his name Immanuel, which when interpretated, is God with us." But at Matt 1:21 the angel tells Joseph, "thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall save his people from their sin." Now before you run off on another tangent and tell me Jesus=Yehoshua and means "YHWH is salvation" therefore Jesus is YHWH have a read of Lukes account (Luke 1:32 in particular).

Christ means anointed one- messiah. The messiah was going to be, non other, than the son of GOD- no human Father. Christ the Messiah had to come in the flesh as told in John 1:1-3-14 anyone that denies this is the anti–chirstI don't deny this. However, from your posts you do seem to fail A.Johns test (1 Jn 4:1-3) and deny "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" making Jesus just a man in whom the "spirit" tabernacled and it was this "spirit" that became flesh. If I misunderstood you I apologise. Please clarify.

A Normal birth does not need to come in the flesh- they are born flesh and blood. No eternal spirit is coming into them.
In your view: When did the "eternal spirit", come to "tablenacle" in Jesus?

You just shot yourself in the footI fail to see why you feel so threatened.

John from Ebla

October 29th 2005, 12:04 AM

At Matt 1:23 it says "[people] shall call his name Immanuel, which when interpretated, is God with us." But at Matt 1:21 the angel tells Joseph, "thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall save his people from their sin." Now before you run off on another tangent and tell me Jesus=Yehoshua and means "YHWH is salvation" therefore Jesus is YHWH have a read of Lukes account (Luke 1:32 in particular).

I don't deny this. However, from your posts you do seem to fail A.Johns test (1 Jn 4:1-3) and deny "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" making Jesus just a man in whom the "spirit" tabernacled and it was this "spirit" that became flesh. If I misunderstood you I apologise. Please clarify.

In your view: When did the "eternal spirit", come to "tablenacle" in Jesus?

I fail to see why you feel so threatened.

You are going in circles.

Jesus is Man and God because God was in him Hebrew 9:14 and John 1:1-3,10,14 The word was God.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 29th 2005, 12:30 AM

So man has a Body Soul an spirit- and if our spirit can be in us ( and we don't see it and we don't feel) then why it so hard for you to undertand Heb 9:14 and John 1:1-3,10,14 The Word that was God and with God was in himAh but we do experience the spirit that is of us: jealousy, meekness, knowledge etc etc (look up any concordance, our human spirit is well defined). By your definition when Jesus said "blessed are the poor in spirit" (KJV: Matt 5:3) only those who have a deficient spirit would inherit the kingdom of God. A clearer translation has it "How blest are those who know their need of God." (NEB). Our spirit in a NT context is our attitude.

As for Heb 9:14: see from vs8. The Holy Spirit and eternal Spirit are distinguished. The eternal Spirit in vs14, corresponds with "accomplishing the service of God" in vs6. Paul in chapter 9 is contrasting the OT sacrifices with the the better sacrifice of Christ.

alam

October 29th 2005, 12:34 AM

Either you do not know the difference between Arianism and Nestorianism, or you didn't read the post. Here is a relevant portion:

"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God."

See Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)

While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:

In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22

The chapter also calls the Logos monogenēs. The -genēs suffix is of that same root and the term can mean "uniquely-begotten" or "uniquely-generated," as autogenēs means "self-produced" (Liddell & Scott 7th ed.).

The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28)

Regards :smile:

We are talking about the word that was GOD with God John1:1 John is talking about Genesis 'In the Begining"

Then answer that post of mine you quoted above, since that's all it's about, as anyone can see! :ahem:

When did that Word (God) cease to be God? l am asking one thing and you are telling me other, about a man born of woman (Jesus)- this is called babbling.

And what you're doing is called :troll:-ing. :lol:

The answer to your red herring was given to you in post 158 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1249970&postcount=158): "I never said that the Logos ceased to be Theos in the incarnation."

Regards,

John from Ebla

October 29th 2005, 12:35 AM

Ah but we do experience the spirit that is of us: jealousy, meekness, knowledge etc etc (look up any concordance, our human spirit is well defined). By your definition when Jesus said "blessed are the poor in spirit" (KJV: Matt 5:3) only those who have a deficient spirit would inherit the kingdom of God. A clearer translation has it "How blest are those who know their need of God." (NEB). Our spirit in a NT context is our attitude.

As for Heb 9:14: see from vs8. The Holy Spirit and eternal Spirit are distinguished. The eternal Spirit in vs14, corresponds with "accomplishing the service of God" in vs6. Paul in chapter 9 is contrasting the OT sacrifices with the the better sacrifice of Christ.

Jesus was the same with the Word God in him.

Only God is Holy- the holy spirit is the etrnal spirit

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

apostoli

October 29th 2005, 12:37 AM

You are going in circles.

Jesus is Man and God because God was in him Hebrew 9:14 and John 1:1-3,10,14 The word was God.In your previous posts you seem to argue that Jesus Christ is not the incarnated Logos; merely that the Holy Spirit dwells in him. Which would make Jesus just a man, like any of the apostles who came to have the Spirit indwelling. If I've misunderstood your posts I again apologise. Please clarify what your belief is.

alam

October 29th 2005, 01:19 AM

Hello Apostoli:

Hi alam,

You know my history and the journey of discovery I have been on. Seems, though I was brought up in the western mainstream, my teachers were somewhat radical (or very conservative (depending on ones view)), theogolically, as their emphasis was always on our relationship with God the Father. Then again I was lucky to have been educated by theologians. And yet, the science of theology was not instrinsic to the teaching I received, just the simple message of the apostolic witness. So I guess I was taught in "plain belief"; which I was diverted from when younger but have come to comprehend as I mature in my understanding. You and I may disagree on some fundemental theological issues, but I trust we remain brothers in Christ, in our overall belief.

Yes, I trust so. If more people in the mainstream church were interpreting the Nicene creed as you do, who knows, maybe I would be going along with it too. As it is, and no offense intended to you and your understanding (even Eusebius of Caesarea could accept it, with qualifications), I cannot shake the impression that it set the tone for the developments that we both disagree with, particularly in the Western church.

You might already have this in your archives, but today I came across "A submission by Kevin Giles to the Sydney Doctrinal Commission working on the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, May 5 2004." You might find it of interest.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:4x4z7QjBjkkJ:www.ajmd.com.au/trinity/DoctrineCommisResponse.pdf+greek+orthodox+autotheos&hl=en

Thanks, I hope to read it this weekend. Here is one you have probably run across, but in case not, it seemed to be a brief but lucid discussion of fourth century non-Nicene Christianity relative to modern subordinationism.

http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/theology/docs/2004/colloquium04amcgowan.pdf

God bless,

apostoli

October 29th 2005, 02:11 AM

Hello Alam,

Yes, I trust so.I'm pleased!

If more people in the mainstream church were interpreting the Nicene creed as you do, who knows, maybe I would be going along with it too.There does seems to be a trend (thou I might be misunderstanding some writers). Giles not being one of them...

Giles says: The discussion in the last thirty years has ranged far and wide, but it may be said with some confidence that conceptualizing the Trinity as a perichoretic (interpenetrating) community of three “persons” who work in perfect unity and harmony has been to the fore. This model of the Trinity highlights the profound unity and the personal distinction within the Trinity without using abstract philosophical terms. It also excludes tritheism, modalism, and subordinationism, the three great Trinitarian heresies. The last of these, subordinationism, has been particularly under assault. Ted Peters says that if anything, contemporary mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic trinitarian thinking is “antisubordinationist.”

But a little later Giles says: Paradoxically in this same period, many evangelical theologians have been moving in the opposite direction...arguing that the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father like women are to men. Most speak only of an eternal subordination in role/function for the Son. However some evangelicals honestly admit that eternal role subordination by necessity implies subordination in person or being. Conservative evangelicals who speak of the eternal subordination of the Son quote Paul’s assertion that God the Father is the “head of Christ” just as “man is the head of woman” (1 Cor. 11:3), and the texts that speak of the Son being “sent” by the Father (Jn. 4:34, 5:30, etc.), and obeying the Father (Rom. 5:18-19; Heb. 5:8). In addition, they claim that the eternal subordination of the Son is historic orthodoxy. We are told that this is the teaching of Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, and various other theologians, as well as the creeds.

Of interest Giles' article concludes: 1 Corinthians 15:28: In this passage Paul seems to speak of the Son’s rule coming to an end at the consummation of all things and of him becoming subject to the Father. The first problem this text raises is that elsewhere the Son’s reign is said to be “forever” (2 Sam. 7:13; Isa. 9:7; Lk.1:33; 2 Peter 1:11; Rev. 7:10-12, 11:15; cf. Eph. 1:20). Then there is the question as to whether the Greek verb translated “subjected” is passive voice, “Christ is subjected by God”, or middle, “Christ subjects himself.” The latter seems preferable because in the incarnation the Son voluntarily subordinates himself, and this would be a parallel. What Paul thus seems to be suggesting is that the rule God the Father gave to God the Son at the resurrection is freely handed back to the Father by the Son at the end. Rather than speaking of fixed roles, or of the eternal subordination of the Son, this text indicates a changing of roles in differing epochs.

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/trinity.htm

As it is, and no offense intended to you and your understanding (even Eusebius of Caesarea could accept it, with qualifications), I cannot shake the impression that it set the tone for the developments that we both disagree with, particularly in the Western church.I agree. Augustine has never been well received in the East. Though I do believe the Russian patriach holds him in regard. It seems to me that the writings of Barth have ignited a reaction against the extremism of Western Science, forcing a re-examination of the ontology of God based on scripture and not philosophy.

Thanks, I hope to read it this weekend. Here is one you have probably run across, but in case not, it seemed to be a brief but lucid discussion of fourth century non-Nicene Christianity relative to modern subordinationism.Thankyou.

God bless you also.

John from Ebla

October 29th 2005, 04:28 AM

In your previous posts you seem to argue that Jesus Christ is not the incarnated Logos; merely that the Holy Spirit dwells in him. Which would make Jesus just a man, like any of the apostles who came to have the Spirit indwelling. If I've misunderstood your posts I again apologise. Please clarify what your belief is.

l am misunderstanding you.

l said the word became flesh all along- as for the Holy spirit, anything that is not created is eternal and what is eternal is God- are you saying the Holy spirit is created- is so, show me the scripture.

Kind regards

apostoli

October 29th 2005, 10:31 AM

l am misunderstanding you.Possibly we misunderstand each other!

l said the word became flesh all alongBut do you believe the Logos, is Jesus Christ as A.John requires (1 John 4:1-3)?

as for the Holy spirit, anything that is not created is eternal and what is eternal is GodUsing the theological definition: eternal=beyond and before ages. God=the source and cause of all things.

are you saying the Holy spirit is created- if so, show me the scripture. No.

As I said in previous posts. I hold to the creeds: that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The standard position is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are seperate individualities, and are in unity (as if one) within the Godhead. Do you agree with this idea? If not, what is your opinion?

John from Ebla

October 29th 2005, 10:57 AM

l am misunderstanding you.Possibly we misunderstand each other!

But do you believe the Logos, is Jesus Christ as A.John requires?

Using the theological definition: eternal=beyond and before ages.

No.

As I said in previous posts. I hold to the creeds: that the Holy Spirit eternally progresses from the Father through the Son.

The incarnated Word and the Holy Spirit are one, just as the Word and the Father are one. John 12:45 “ whoever sees Me sees Him who sent me (The word was God John 1:1)

The incarnated Word came in the name of the Father- the Holy Spirit came in the name of the incarnated Word (Son). The body of the resurrected Son of God is not in us, but the Holy spirit that came in his name is (that is why the scriptures say Christ is in us- the Holy Spirit is in us- the body of Christ cannot be in us- but the holy spirit that came in his name can.)

AND NO- WE DON"T HAVE THE FULLNESS OF THE SPIRIT

PS l will reply to anything tomorrow :sigh:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 29th 2005, 11:25 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

I think we are moving through the mist, of what might prove a mutual understanding.

The incarnated Word and the Holy Spirit are one, just as the Word and the Father are one. John 12:45 “ whoever sees Me sees Him who sent me (The word was God John 1:1)Where we might disagree: I perceive the Son as revealing the Father, whereas the Spirit intercedes on our behalf drawing us to the Father through the Son. What is your opinion?
The incarnated Word came in the name of the FatherAgreed.
the Holy Spirit came in the name of the incarnated Word (Son).More precisely: Jesus says at John 14:26, that "the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you..." Then at John 16:13 "he (the comforter) will guide you into the truth. vs14 "he (the comforter) will glorify me (Jesus)" vs15 "And all things that the Father has are mine."
The body of the resurrected Son of God is not in usAgreed
but the Holy spirit that came in his name is (that is why the scriptures say Christ is in us- the Holy Spirit is in us- the body of Christ cannot be in us- but the holy spirit that came in his name can.)In technical terms: We are meant to reflect the Spirit of Christ (eg: Phil 2) that is Jesus the Christ's attitude. It is "the Spirit=the Comforter" that we receive from the Father by the bequest of the Son, that bears witness with our Spirit. But ultimately it is the Spirit of God (God is Love) which dwells in us, if we have the "Spirit of Christ" and have received "the Spirit" (Rom 8, 1 John 4). Do you Agree?

AND NO- WE DON"T HAVE THE FULLNESS OF THE SPIRITHmm. How do you understand Eph 3:19; given Col 1:19;2:9?

Kindess regards to you also...until the morrow :sigh:

andiwashere

October 29th 2005, 12:26 PM

Hey Sparko,

Jesus' sacrifice took away the punishment of all of the faithful, whether they sinned 2000 years before Christ died, or 2000 years after.
oooh...I get in now! To further my understanding, can you tell me, were the OT sins forgiven at the time of the symbolic sacrifice (in Gods expectation of Jesus)? Or, was forgiveness delayed until the time that Jesus was crucified?

If Jesus did not make the sacrifice then God could not have forgiven the sins. And no mere man could have paid for all those sins. He could only pay for his own. Only a divine being could pay for all sins for all time. Only God himself.
Besides Heb 10, do you have other versus to support this?

Thanks again,
Andi

Sparko

October 29th 2005, 01:13 PM

Hey Sparko,

oooh...I get in now! To further my understanding, can you tell me, were the OT sins forgiven at the time of the symbolic sacrifice (in Gods expectation of Jesus)? Or, was forgiveness delayed until the time that Jesus was crucified?

Actual forgiveness is given at the Judgment. Just like condemnation is handed out at that time for the unbeleivers. But we have promised forgiveness right now. Or maybe you want to call it 'effective' forgiveness? In other words, God does not hold our sins against us NOW because he knows we belong to him when we chose Christ as our Lord, even though we will not face Judgement until much later. I think God treated the OT sacrifices the same way. They got EFFECTIVE forgivness at the time they did the sacrifices, but it was based on Christ's sacrifice, and it won't become ACTUAL until the judgment (which is still future for them too)

Besides Heb 10, do you have other versus to support this?

Thanks again,
Andi

Well basically it is logical. All men are corrupted and sinful. The only way into heaven (if Jesus did not come) would be to be sinless and obey the law perfectly, yes?

but if there was a perfect and sinless mortal somehow who lived, he would only have gotten himself into heaven by not sinning. His not sinning would not pay for every other sin by all other men, would it?

A man can only pay for his own sin, or get into heaven himself if he has no sin.
Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30 NIV)

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16, NIV)

Only an infinite and eternal divine being could be "big enough" to pay for ALL SIN for ALL TIME. But God could not just forgive sin with no sacrifice, because then there would be no justice. He would have promised punishment to those who sinned, but arbitrarily forgiven those who he wanted to with no reason or payment.

So God had to become ONE of US, and pay the price himself. He is the only one perfect enough, and he is the one who the offenses (sins) are against so he can take his own punishment in our place.

Further reference and some verses can be found here: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusdieforsins.htm

John from Ebla

October 30th 2005, 02:21 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

I think we are moving through the mist, of what might prove a mutual understanding.

Where we might disagree: I perceive the Son as revealing the Father, whereas the Spirit intercedes on our behalf drawing us to the Father through the Son. What is your opinion?
Agreed.
More precisely: Jesus says at John 14:26, that "the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you..." Then at John 16:13 "he (the comforter) will guide you into the truth. vs14 "he (the comforter) will glorify me (Jesus)" vs15 "And all things that the Father has are mine."
Agreed
In technical terms: We are meant to reflect the Spirit of Christ (eg: Phil 2) that is Jesus the Christ's attitude. It is "the Spirit=the Comforter" that we receive from the Father by the bequest of the Son, that bears witness with our Spirit. But ultimately it is the Spirit of God (God is Love) which dwells in us, if we have the "Spirit of Christ" and have received "the Spirit" (Rom 8, 1 John 4). Do you Agree?

Hmm. How do you understand Eph 3:19; given Col 1:19;2:9?

Kindess regards to you also...until the morrow :sigh:

‘Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor 3:17). That is why Scriptures say, "Christ is in us" - "the Spirit is in Us" (There is only one LORD (1 Cor 8:6) and the spirit is eternal- not created.)

The spirit of the Lord (Christ) was sent in his name (John 14:26) and the Lord Christ is the incarnated Word that was God and with God (John 1:1)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 30th 2005, 03:20 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

‘Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor 3:17). That is why Scriptures say, "Christ is in us" - "the Spirit is in Us"Are you saying that Jesus is the Holy Spirit referred to in John 16:7? Ah just noticed below that you are "The spirit of the Lord (Christ)". In which case you have quoted 2 Cor 3:17 totally out of context. Have a read of Matthew Henry's commentary on 2 Cor 3 to get an understanding...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1130654655-3015.html

(There is only one LORD (1 Cor 8:6) and the spirit is eternal- not created.)I agree 100%

The spirit of the Lord (Christ) was sent in his name (John 14:26) A.John relates Jesus saying "These things have I spoken unto you, being present with you. But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things into remembrance, whatever I have said unto you." Now note vs 16-17: "I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you forever."

and the Lord Christ is the incarnated Word that was God and with God (John 1:1) Who was "face to face with" God in the beginning

Have a read "John 1:1 Meaning and Translation", by James White
http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

John from Ebla

October 30th 2005, 03:32 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Are you saying that Jesus is the Holy Spirit referred to in John 16:7? Ah just noticed below that you are "The spirit of the Lord (Christ)". In which case you have quoted 2 Cor 3:17 totally out of context. Have a read of Matthew Henry's commentary on 2 Cor 3 to get an understanding...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1130654655-3015.html

I agree 100%

A.John relates Jesus saying "These things have I spoken unto you, being present with you. But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things into remembrance, whatever I have said unto you." Now note vs 16-17: "I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you forever."

Who was "face to face with" God in the beginning

Have a read "John 1:1 Meaning and Translation", by James White
http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

l don't undertand you.

Do you want bible lesson? or to know if the word is begotten or not. Which one.?

apostoli

October 30th 2005, 03:43 AM

l don't understand you.Plain words:
1. You have quoted the words of A.Paul out of context. Read Matthew Henry's commentary (see link in previous post) to get an understanding.
2. You quote A.John without understanding what it is, that is being told you by him. Read the link provided in the previous post to get understanding.
3. Jesus said the Father would send "another Comforter", he did not say he would return as that Comforter. Also see Romans 8. Jesus is not "the Spirit" who the Father sent.
Do you want bible lesson?Not from someone who doesn't know or use their bible!
or to know if the word is begotten or not.Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Yes or No?

John from Ebla

October 30th 2005, 03:55 AM

Plain words:
1. You have quoted the words of A.Paul out of context. Read Matthew Henry's commentary (see link in previous post) to get an understanding.
2. You quote A.John without understanding what it was being told you by him. Read the link provided in the previous post to get understanding.
3. Jesus said he would send "another Comforter", he did not say he would return as that Comforter. Also see Romans 8. Jesus is not "the Spirit" who the Father sent.
Not from someone who doesn't know or use their bible!
Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Yes or No?

Yes Jesus said he will send it after he goes- if he does not go he will not sent it. The Holy Spirit searches and knows the mind of God (Do you want me to get the scriptures for you)

It is eternal because nothing that is created can know the mind of God, only the spirit of God, the essence of what he is. It is God as it the Word

Is the word begotten or not?

apostoli

October 30th 2005, 04:45 AM

John from Elba,

Yes Jesus said he will send it after he goes- if he does not go he will not sent it. The Holy Spirit searches and knows the mind of God (Do you want me to get the scriptures for you)Lets read them together. John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7. In vs 15:26 Jesus says he'll send the comforter but that is because (according to 14:16 & vs 15:26) Jesus would intercede for us "pray the Father" sends it in Jesus' name. But notice in 15:26 it is from the Father that the Spirit proceeds not from Jesus as you said in a previous post.

The reason the Spirit wasn't sent while Jesus was on earth is simple: There wasn't a need! Aaccording to Jn 14:16, it is "another Comforter".

It is eternal because nothing that is created can know the mind of God, only the spirit of God, the essence of what he is.I agree (1 Cor 2:11)

It is God as it the Word"the Spirit" proceeds from the Father but it is other than the Logos. Jn 14:16: Jesus calls him "another comforter".

Is the word begotten or not?Based on John 1:1,14,18 - I have always maintained that teaching. As the scripture says the Logos became flesh, and identifies that flesh as Jesus Christ.

Based on your previous posts, it seems that you believe: that only the flesh of Jesus was begotten, and at some stage a "Spirit" came to dwell in Jesus, as if setting up his tent within.

I presume you are an excellent soccer player. Its interesting how you are want to side-step answering questions. But though you evade answering my questions, if I collate everything you say, I am getting a idea of what you believe. But I have yet to figure out why.

I won't flame you, if you are honest.

John from Ebla

October 30th 2005, 04:51 AM

John from Elba,

Lets read them together. John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7. In vs 15:26 Jesus says he'll send the comforter but that is because (according to 14:16 & vs 15:26) Jesus would intercede for us "pray the Father" sends it in Jesus' name. But notice in 15:26 it is from the Father that the Spirit proceeds not from Jesus as you said in a previous post.

The reason the Spirit wasn't sent while Jesus was on earth is simple: There wasn't a need! Aaccording to Jn 14:16, it is "another Comforter".

I agree (1 Cor 2:11)

"the Spirit" proceeds from the Father but it is other than the Logos. Jn 14:16: Jesus calls him "another comforter".

Based on John 1:1,14,18 - I have always maintained that teaching. As the scripture says the Logos became flesh, and identifies that flesh as Jesus Christ.

Based on your previous posts, it seems that you believe: that only the flesh of Jesus was begotten, and at some stage a "Spirit" came to dwell in Jesus, as if setting up his tent within.

I presume you are an excellent soccer player. Its interesting how you are want to side-step answering questions. But though you evade answering my questions, if I collate everything you say, I am getting a idea of what you believe. But I have yet to figure out why.

I won't flame you, if you are honest.

The Word was God so the spirit is the spirit of God- That is why Paul say's "The spirit is the Lord" because the Lord is God -they are one but individuals. l am not disagreeing with you- what are you on about?

The Holy Spirit searches and knows the mind of God (Do you want me to get the scriptures for you)

It is eternal because nothing that is created can know the mind of God, only the spirit of God, the essence of what he is. It is God as is the Word what is created is not God

Is the Spirit created or not? Is the word created or not?

Please answer Mr side stepper.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 30th 2005, 08:50 AM

The Word was God so the spirit is the spirit of God- That is why Paul say's "The spirit is the Lord" because the Lord is God -they are one but individuals. l am not disagreeing with you- what are you on about?I'm probably misunderstanding but it seems you are making the Word and the Spirit mere attributes or modes of God's revelation to us. Can you expand on your statement?

The Holy Spirit searches and knows the mind of God (Do you want me to get the scriptures for you)Agreed. I've even quoted 1 Cor 2:11 several times to you (eg: post #206).

It is eternal because nothing that is created can know the mind of God, only the spirit of God, the essence of what he is.I agreed numerous times. What are you trying to prove by repeating the same things over and over again?

it is God as is the WordDo you agree with the statement: Before creation the Father, Logos and Spirit, had individual and simultaneous existence.

what is created is not GodI'm not aware of any group, let alone anyone here that believes the Spirit is created!

Is the Spirit created or not? Is the word created or not? Please answer Mr side stepper.You have asked this question numerous times and each time I have said No! I'll put it in a sentence: Neither the Logos nor the Spirit were created.

Please answer Mr side stepper.I have no need to side step: I have tried to answer all your questions directly and without ambiguity. At least I've answered your questions. I could immitate your example.

John from Ebla

October 30th 2005, 08:59 AM

I'm probably misunderstanding but it seems you are making the Word and the Spirit mere attributes or modes of God's revelation to us. Can you expand on your statement?

Agreed. I've even quoted 1 Cor 2:11 several times to you (eg: post #206).

I agreed numerous times. What are you trying to prove by repeating the same things over and over again?

Do you agree with the statement: Before creation the Father, Logos and Spirit, had individual and simultaneous existence.

I'm not aware of any group, let alone anyone here that believes the Spirit is created!

You have asked this question numerous times and each time I have said No! I'll put it in a sentence: Neither the Logos nor the Spirit were created.

I have no need to side step: I have tried to answer all your questions directly and without ambiguity. At least I've answered your questions. I could immitate your example.

For the last time

Is the word Created or not? :ahem: Is the holy Spirit created or not? :ahem:

What is not created and eternal is God- that is where l stand.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

October 31st 2005, 12:01 AM

For the last time

Is the word Created or not? :ahem: Is the holy Spirit created or not? :ahem:

What is not created and eternal is God- that is where l stand.I do not believe that the spirit was created, nor do I believe the word to be created. And I've made that statement consistantly, clearly and without ambiguity every time you asked it (nearly every one of your recent posts)

You are making yourself look silly to eveyone following this thread, asking the same question over and over again, even though I've clearly answered the question over and over again.

As you never answer my questions, it is apparent you need to avoid them. What is it you are hiding?

I'll keep it simple for you: Please answer just Yes or No. Do you believe that the Father, Logos/Word and Holy Spirit existed as seperate and distinct entities before the creation?

John from Ebla

October 31st 2005, 02:56 AM

I do not believe that the spirit was created, nor do I believe the word to be created. And I've made that statement consistantly, clearly and without ambiguity every time you asked it (nearly every one of your recent posts)

You are making yourself look silly to eveyone following this thread, asking the same question over and over again, even though I've clearly answered the question over and over again.

As you never answer my questions, it is apparent you need to avoid them. What is it you are hiding?

I'll keep it simple for you: Please answer just Yes or No. Do you believe that the Father, Logos/Word and Holy Spirit existed as seperate and distinct entities before the creation?

One God. How can a GOD/ spirit be seperated? Do you know what spirit is? where ever the same essence of spirit, the fullness of it is, it is the same, even if they are show as individauls and apart, they are still one in the other. God is GOD and God is eternal. God/ Father, God Word/Son God/Holy Spirit.

KInd regards
John From Embla

apostoli

October 31st 2005, 07:59 AM

apostoli: As you never answer my questions, it is apparent you need to avoid them. What is it you are hiding?

I'll keep it simple for you: Please answer just Yes or No. Do you believe that the Father, Logos/Word and Holy Spirit existed as seperate and distinct entities before the creation?

John from Ebla: One God. How can a GOD/ spirit be seperated? Do you know what spirit is? where ever the same essence of spirit, the fullness of it is, it is the same, even if they are show as individauls and apart, they are still one in the other. God is GOD and God is eternal. God/ Father, God Word/Son God/Holy Spirit.Unless I misunderstand you. It seems you are saying you do not believe in the trinity as universally understood but believe that God is a single entity who is revealed to us either as Father, or as Son/Logos/Word or as the Spirit. Is this a fair statement of your belief?

John from Ebla

October 31st 2005, 08:39 AM

Unless I misunderstand you. It seems you are saying you do not believe in the trinity as universally understood but believe that God is a single entity who is revealed to us either as Father, or as Son/Logos/Word or as the Spirit. Is this a fair statement of your belief?

It is a fair statement- 9o % accurate

Due to the boundaries of my/ our/ human/ cerebra, l am incapable of defining God with 101% accuracy (The thought they new God) l would probable say the same as Paul " Great is the mystery " because l just don't want to label God "unknowable" and "unable of something because my mind cannot comprehend.

To me, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal is God- The Father, The Word, and the Holy spirit although distinct, they are the same spirit (essense)The fullness of what makes God, God.

Kind regards
John From Embla

Squeakybro

October 31st 2005, 03:12 PM

I asked this general question, in intro to Christian theology, yesterday, but I haven't gotten a reply yet (I'm impatiant.). I'm not looking for a debate, just somebody and or some people to explain the reasoning.

I did some research today, and it seems the trinity was an answer to the perceived heresy of Arius (Arianism). The history in interesting, but I still don't understand the importance.

I am not currently interested in the 'salvation' importance. I'm more interested in the 'natures of God and Jesus' importance. As an example; I once heard a preacher say something like, 'If I didn't beleive in the trinity, I would not want to believe in God.' It seems the very nature of God, and Gods goodness, was wrapped up in his belief of the trinity. Is that common? If so, what is the reasoning?

thx
Andi

TRINITY EVIDENCE FALSE
Everything that the trinitarians claims makes Jesus God. Are the same things we can do also. And it doesnt make us God. Trinitarians have tried to form a belief on circumstantial verses, not factual verses. And they base their belief on principles that are not even in the Word of God. A Believer bases all their beliefs on what is written, not on what is not written.

Matt 20:22-23
22 But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able."
23 So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."

Circumstantial Verses
Circumstantial verses are verses that can be used either way. As in this one,(My Lord and my God) The word and can be used to separate Lord and God, it can also be used to bring them together as one. Now as John was addressing Jesus at this point John knew and believed that God was also in Jesus. So in his attempt to address them both he was addressing "My Lord Jesus Christ, and also my God the Father that dwells in You.

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
(NKJ)
Factual Verses
In the factual verses, they can only be taken one way, with no variations. So the carnal mind has to pervert the factual verses in order to believe the circumstantial verses. The factual verses explain the circumstantial verses. As in this one, "One God the Father". The Father is the one God. But if you read one you see there is also one Lord Jesus Christ, which explains why John said it the way he did.

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

THE DIVINITY(DEITY) OF CHRIST
Acts 17:29-30
29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.
30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
(NKJ)
2 Pet 1:4
4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
ONLY GOD CAN BE WORSHIPPED (WE CAN AND WILL BE WORSHIPPED)
Rev 3:9
9 "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie-- indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
THREE IN ONE GOD, ONE GOD IN THREE
Everything that separates trinitarians from Christians comes from out side of the scriptures. Trintiy, deity, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Eph 4:6
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

The apostles even said. Yet for us there is one God the Father.
Christians believe there is one God the Father.
Trinitarians always start with questions, this is how they deceive.
2 Tim 2:23
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
(NKJ)
THE 'ARE ONE' DELUSION
WE ARE ONE WITH CHRIST AND GOD AND HOLY SPIRIT
IF JESUS IS GOD BECAUSE OF THE ONENESS-THEN WE ARE GOD. NOT SO!
John 10:30
30 "I and My Father are one."
(NKJ)
John 17:22
22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:
I Jn 5:7-8
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
1 Cor 12:12-14
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
1 Cor 10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
1 Cor 3:7-11
7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Rom 12:5
5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.
John 17:20-23
20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:
23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
John 10:29-30
29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
30 "I and My Father are one."
Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 Cor 6:17
17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Matt 10:32-33
32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.
1 Cor 11:1
1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2 Cor 10:4-5
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
1 Cor 11:3
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Rom 16:25-27
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith--
27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.
1 Cor 1:10
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Rom 12:16
16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
Phil 3:16
16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.
2 Cor 4:13-14
13 And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I believed and therefore I spoke," we also believe and therefore speak,
14 knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you.
(NKJ)
xxOneness is all about agreement. John 17-22 Jesus prayed that we may be one the same way that Jesus and God are one. Jesus submitted to every Word of God that shows His agreement. We are to submit to every Word of God to show our agreement.
Jesus prayed John 17-22 that we "are one" with Jesus and God the Father. And that doesnt make us God any more than it made Jesus God to be one with God.

THE I AM DELUSION
John 7:39-43
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
43 So there was a division among the people because of him.
John 7:51-52
51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
John 8:1-2
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
John 8:12
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:16-18
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
John 8:21
21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
John 8:23-24
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
John 8:28-29
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
John 8:58-59
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
(KJV)
xxx Jesus was teaching in the temple and they were questioning Him on whether or not He was the Christ. Then they all went home and came back the next day to question Him some more. When Jesus told them: you will die in your sins if you do not believe that I am He. Then in verse 58 Jesus was telling them that even before Abraham that I am . But they picked up stones to throw at Him so they cut Jesus off in the middle of His sentance and Jesus got out of there. Jesus was claiming that" I AM He" the Christ. Jesus was not claiming He was God.
verse 24 and 28 Jesus said it, I am he. Jesus was saying He was the Christ that they were speaking of in John 7-41. But in is obvious why they didnt understand from John 7-39 they havent received the Holy Spirit yet. And even today many do not know the Spirit and get deceived in the verses.
Only People Who Worship In The Flesh Believe Jesus Is God
On Ro 9
Paul is talking about having great sorrow and grief over those who worship in the flesh.According to the flesh he could even wish he were cut off from Christ. Because those who worship in the flesh believe that Christ came and that Christ is the eternally blessed God.But as Paul says they are not all Israel who are from Israel nor are they children of Abraham seed. Those who worship in the flesh and believe this are not children of God.
Rom 9:1-8
1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
Luke 16:15
15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Sparko

October 31st 2005, 03:48 PM

Well... If somene like Squeakybro is against the Trinity I think that is all the proof I need that it is true!

I hope that convinces you too Andi! :hehe:

andiwashere

October 31st 2005, 05:15 PM

Well... If somene like Squeakybro is against the Trinity I think that is all the proof I need that it is true!

I hope that convinces you too Andi! :hehe:

Now now Sparko, let's not bring me into an uncomfortable situation. I've had enough conflict to last both our lives. I've spent the better part of the last 20 years kicking bad habits and trying finding serenity. Peace love and happiness baby.

As to your next to last post...I'm still thinking. I'll probably end-up starting another thread...just to figure out what I think about Gods justice, the Judgement, and heaven. Geez, this stuff can get complicated! :ahem:

Do you suppose I can just pretend to believe in the trinity? :chicken:

Cheers (but bears no more)
Andi

apostoli

October 31st 2005, 06:38 PM

apostoli:
It seems you are saying you do not believe in the trinity as universally understood but believe that God is a single entity who is revealed to us either as Father, or as Son/Logos/Word or as the Spirit. Is this a fair statement of your belief?

John from Ebla:
It is a fair statement- 90% accurate. Due to the boundaries of my/ our/ human/ cerebra, l am incapable of defining God with 101% accuracy (The thought they new God) l would probable say the same as Paul " Great is the mystery " because l just don't want to label God "unknowable" and "unable of something because my mind cannot comprehend.

To me, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal is God- The Father, The Word, and the Holy spirit although distinct, they are the same spirit (essense)The fullness of what makes God, God.Thankyou.

I think we are in agreement, at least to the extent of 1 Cor 2:11-12. However, we may understand your comment in different ways: "Father, The Word, and the Holy spirit although distinct, they are the same spirit (essense)." In what way do you see the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit as distinct?

John from Ebla

November 1st 2005, 03:11 AM

Thankyou.

I think we are in agreement, at least to the extent of 1 Cor 2:11-12. However, we may understand your comment in different ways: "Father, The Word, and the Holy spirit although distinct, they are the same spirit (essense)." In what way do you see the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit as distinct?

To start with The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirits relation to God is hard to differentiate- it is as if it the Holy Spirit is distinct, but integrated with God in all it’s functions-Fragmentation of it is virtually impossible to me- l say It Is GOD

Mark 12: 36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." (Ps 110:1) The Holy Spirit spoke through David- it was the voice of David but the words of the Holly Spirit

Acts 28: 25-26………..: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 'Go to this people and say, You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive." (Isa 6:9) The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah- the voice of Isaiah but the words of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit speaking though people- the voice of the person but words of the Holy spirit This is how scriptures are God inspired – by the breath of God. Who spoke through the people above- the Holy Spirit or God? If the Holy Spirit is the breath of the God, then the Holy Spirit is God.

There is only one God That is why there is only One Spirit-fragmentation is not possible to me.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

apostoli

November 1st 2005, 09:00 AM

To start with The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirits relation to God is hard to differentiate- it is as if it the Holy Spirit is distinct, but integrated with God in all it’s functions-Fragmentation of it is virtually impossible to me- l say It Is GOD

Mark 12: 36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." (Ps 110:1) The Holy Spirit spoke through David- it was the voice of David but the words of the Holly Spirit

Acts 28: 25-26………..: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 'Go to this people and say, You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive." (Isa 6:9) The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah- the voice of Isaiah but the words of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit speaking though people- the voice of the person but words of the Holy spirit This is how scriptures are God inspired – by the breath of God. Who spoke through the people above- the Holy Spirit or God? If the Holy Spirit is the breath of the God, then the Holy Spirit is God.

There is only one God That is why there is only One Spirit-fragmentation is not possible to me.Thankyou John from Elba. All I've ever wanted from you is to know what believe.

I have a different opinion and I will admit I do not understand yours - at least based on my own understanding of scriptutre. I am interested in understanding why you believe as you do. Would you expand on your belief or possibly direct me to a link that will give me the reasoning of what you believe.

John from Ebla

November 1st 2005, 09:46 AM

Thankyou John from Elba. All I've ever wanted from you is to know what believe.

I have a different opinion and I will admit I do not understand yours - at least based on my own understanding of scriptutre. I am interested in understanding why you believe as you do. Would you expand on your belief or possibly direct me to a link that will give me the reasoning of what you believe.

l don't have a link for what l beleive, just the bible.

To my mind it is simple: The holy spirit functions and acts in ways identified with the mind of God. So how can something outside the very spirit of God know the mind of God?

Where the spirit proceeds from God, and exerts an effect upon man, it is His power, or influence, but not the fullness of it.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Daco

November 1st 2005, 11:48 AM

Unless I misunderstand you. It seems you are saying you do not believe in the trinity as universally understood but believe that God is a single entity who is revealed to us either as Father, or as Son/Logos/Word or as the Spirit. Is this a fair statement of your belief?

Excuse me for butting in, but this is an adequate statement, I think, of what I believe. I do not believe there ever was a trinity. God is One. Always has been. I am what is called Oneness as regards my view on the Godhead. God was never even referred to in the Old Testament as Father (except in a couple instances as Creator) until the physical birth of Jesus, who was the Son (more clearly, YHWH in human existence). The only distinctions I can see from that point on is the differences between flesh and Spirit. The flesh of Jesus was not divine, nor eternal. The Spirit living in Him was very God. When Jesus prayed, it was not one god praying to another god, it was the flesh of the man Jesus praying to His Father, the God of Heaven. Jesus is the one who began calling God, "the Father" as He illustrated to His disciples the very unique relationship He had with God.

John from Ebla

November 2nd 2005, 02:06 AM

Excuse me for butting in, but this is an adequate statement, I think, of what I believe. I do not believe there ever was a trinity. God is One. Always has been. I am what is called Oneness as regards my view on the Godhead. God was never even referred to in the Old Testament as Father (except in a couple instances as Creator) until the physical birth of Jesus, who was the Son (more clearly, YHWH in human existence). The only distinctions I can see from that point on is the differences between flesh and Spirit. The flesh of Jesus was not divine, nor eternal. The Spirit living in Him was very God. When Jesus prayed, it was not one god praying to another god, it was the flesh of the man Jesus praying to His Father, the God of Heaven. Jesus is the one who began calling God, "the Father" as He illustrated to His disciples the very unique relationship He had with God.

Have we not all one "father" Malachi 2:10 Adam was called Son of God, angels were called sons of God- this implies Fatherhood, offspring of God not human fathers.

Then the old testament makes it clear that he is "Father of the fatherless." Hosea (14:3) the fatherless find mercy in Him. Then in Psalm 10:14 God is described as the one who helps the fatherless, "When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up." (Psalm 27:10).

Have we not all one "father" Malachi 2:10 God eternal "Father"

Kind Rgerads
john From Ebla

apostoli

November 2nd 2005, 06:35 AM

Hi Daco,
Excuse me for butting in, but this is an adequate statement, I think, of what I believe. I do not believe there ever was a trinity. God is One. Always has been. I am what is called Oneness as regards my view on the Godhead. God was never even referred to in the Old Testament as Father (except in a couple instances as Creator) until the physical birth of Jesus, who was the Son (more clearly, YHWH in human existence). The only distinctions I can see from that point on is the differences between flesh and Spirit. The flesh of Jesus was not divine, nor eternal. The Spirit living in Him was very God. When Jesus prayed, it was not one god praying to another god, it was the flesh of the man Jesus praying to His Father, the God of Heaven. Jesus is the one who began calling God, "the Father" as He illustrated to His disciples the very unique relationship He had with God.Thankyou for your statement of belief. As is probably obvious from my posts, I have a different opinion. I would like to understand the reasoning behind yours. If you would, would you expand on your understanding of scripture or point me to a link that might explain the rationale.

Thankyou.

Daco

November 8th 2005, 02:55 PM

Have we not all one "father" Malachi 2:10 Adam was called Son of God, angels were called sons of God- this implies Fatherhood, offspring of God not human fathers.

Then the old testament makes it clear that he is "Father of the fatherless." Hosea (14:3) the fatherless find mercy in Him. Then in Psalm 10:14 God is described as the one who helps the fatherless, "When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up." (Psalm 27:10).

Have we not all one "father" Malachi 2:10 God eternal "Father"

Kind Rgerads
john From Ebla

Exactly. A few places, as you have sited, refer to Him as Father. That is all.

Daco

November 8th 2005, 03:34 PM

Hi Daco,
Thankyou for your statement of belief. As is probably obvious from my posts, I have a different opinion. I would like to understand the reasoning behind yours. If you would, would you expand on your understanding of scripture or point me to a link that might explain the rationale.

Thankyou.

The foremost cornerstone of truth concerning the God of the Old Testament is that God is one.
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
Isaiah 46:9 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,"
Isaiah 45:20-23 "Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

Of course, there are many other scriptures supporting that God is one. John 1:1-3 indicates that the Word was with God and the Word was God and in verse 14 the Word was made flesh (the person of Jesus).
Matthew 1:18-20 tells of the announcement of Jesus' birth by Gabriel to Joseph, that the child that she was carrying was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Now, if the Holy Ghost is a third person of the trinity, and He is the father of Jesus, who is the Father (the first person of the trinity) the father of? Clearly, to me, the Father and the Holy Ghost are not truly separate persons but one and the same Spirit.

When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well of Samaria in John chapter 4, He told her that the Samaritans did not know who they worshipped but the Jews did: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." (v.22). Now, if there actually was a trinity, pre-existing, etc. then Jesus would not have truthfully said this to her. He would have said something like, "The Jews don't really know who they worship either, for they have to be taught that God is Trinity." He affirmed what all of Old Testament scripture attests that God is not divided, He is one and always has been, and always will be. The person of Jesus, the Son of God did not exist literally until He was born of Mary. The Spirit that lived in Him was eternal God (Col.2:9): "For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Jesus taught that the Holy Ghost, or the Comforter was the Spirit of God or Himself, returned after His ascension to dwell within the heart of the believer. John 14:16-18, 23, 26:

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Please excuse, this is extremely abbreviated for the sake of time and space.

John from Ebla

November 8th 2005, 10:06 PM

Exactly. A few places, as you have sited, refer to Him as Father. That is all.

No, there are more

(Isaiah 64:8) Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

It is clear God is Father.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Daco

November 9th 2005, 12:01 PM

No, there are more

(Isaiah 64:8) Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

It is clear God is Father.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

And this, too, is speaking as in the role of Creator. My point is that Jesus spoke of God as His Father from the unique relationship that He had with God as Father & Son (Spirit & flesh).

apostoli

November 10th 2005, 07:49 PM

Hi Daco,

Thankyou for replying. Sorry for the delay in this reply but I wanted to have a think about what you said...

The person of Jesus, the Son of God did not exist literally until He was born of Mary. The Spirit that lived in Him was eternal God (Col.2:9): "For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."You've made reference to Col 2:9, and I presume put emphasis on the term "bodily". Col 1:19 doesn't make that qualification and reading Col 1:13-19 we are told that "the Son...is before all things and by him all things consist." To me: this seems to contradict what you have said. How is this reconciled?

[QUOTE=Daco]Jesus taught that the Holy Ghost, or the Comforter was the Spirit of God or Himself, returned after His ascension to dwell within the heart of the believer. John 14:16-18, 23, 26.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.[QUOTE]Not sure if I understand you correctly. This is the context in which I'm understanding you (given the little I know about oneness belief): the Spirit of God tabernacled in the flesh/man Jesus. That Spirit of God departed before the flesh/man Jesus died. The flesh/man died, was resurrected, transformed and ascended to heaven as a Spirit.

Based on the bits of text you have highlighted it seems you conclude: The Spirit of Christ with the the Spirit of God tabernacling in him is sent to the disciples as the comforter.

The bit I've highlighted in blue confuses me, so I have probably misunderstood you. Would you clarify. Thanks.

schotzy

November 15th 2005, 10:41 AM

Daco

November 16th 2005, 12:32 PM

Hi Daco,

Thankyou for replying. Sorry for the delay in this reply but I wanted to have a think about what you said...

You've made reference to Col 2:9, and I presume put emphasis on the term "bodily". Col 1:19 doesn't make that qualification and reading Col 1:13-19 we are told that "the Son...is before all things and by him all things consist." To me: this seems to contradict what you have said. How is this reconciled?

[QUOTE=Daco]Jesus taught that the Holy Ghost, or the Comforter was the Spirit of God or Himself, returned after His ascension to dwell within the heart of the believer. John 14:16-18, 23, 26.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.[QUOTE]Not sure if I understand you correctly. This is the context in which I'm understanding you (given the little I know about oneness belief): the Spirit of God tabernacled in the flesh/man Jesus. That Spirit of God departed before the flesh/man Jesus died. The flesh/man died, was resurrected, transformed and ascended to heaven as a Spirit.

Based on the bits of text you have highlighted it seems you conclude: The Spirit of Christ with the the Spirit of God tabernacling in him is sent to the disciples as the comforter.

The bit I've highlighted in blue confuses me, so I have probably misunderstood you. Would you clarify. Thanks.
Colossians 1:13-20: "13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
beginning

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"

Verses 13-14 indicate that the deliverance, translation, and redemption accomplished by Jesus for us was done through His blood or after His death, burial, and resurrection and not in any time pre-existing.

Verse 15 declares Jesus to be the invisible God made visible or the eternal Spirit in the form of man i.e. the Word made flesh. Being the firstborn of every creature simply refers to His resurrection. While all will one day rise from the dead, Jesus was the first to rise into the realm where death no longer has dominion (even when Lazarus was raised from the dead, he was subject to die again).

Verses 16-17 This is describing who Jesus was before His birth into this world. He was Creator of all things visible and invisible, principalities and powers, etc. He spoke them all into existence. All things were created by Him and for Him, for He was the Almighty God.

Verse 18-19 brings us back to considering Him since His Incarnation. He is the head of the Church. Once again, referencing His resurrection from the dead, He is the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He (the man Christ Jesus) might have the preeminence. It pleased the eternal Spirit (the Father) that in Him (the man/flesh Christ Jesus - or an implication of emphasis on bodily as in chapter 2:9) should all fulness dwell.
When Paul speaks of the Son being before all things, etc. he is instructing the Colossians that before Jesus was born into this world, He was the Almighty God. His entrance into the realm of humanity did not cause Him to cease to exist as God but in His humanity, He was pleased to include all that He is as God into the visible, tangible, approachable expression of Himself to mankind.

In John 14:16-18, 23, 26, Jesus used the term Holy Ghost and Comforter interchangeably. A ghost is the returned spirit of a dead man. Jesus is simply encouraging His disciples that while He is leaving them (through His death first, and later His Ascension) He would not leave them as orphans. He would send His returned Spirit to dwell in them. In verse 16, the Holy Ghost is mentioned as a third party. Verse 17 indentifies the Holy Ghost as the Spirit that lived in the person of Jesus: "... but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Verse 18 further identifies the Holy Ghost as being Jesus Himself: "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." Verse 18 indentifies the Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as the Father and that Spirit which dwelt in the Son: "we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

the Spirit of God tabernacled in the flesh/man Jesus. That Spirit of God departed before the flesh/man Jesus died. The flesh/man died, was resurrected, transformed and ascended to heaven as a Spirit.

Based on the bits of text you have highlighted it seems you conclude: The Spirit of Christ with the the Spirit of God tabernacling in him is sent to the disciples as the comforter.

For someone who does not claim to understand much of Oneness, you have come pretty close, I would say. I would adjust your remarks in this fashion:
The Spirit of God was in Christ (II Corinthians 5:19). The man died on the cross, the Spirit quickened Him to a transformed, resurrected body (having flesh and bone according to Luke 24:39). He ascended into heaven as this resurrected man, not simply as a Spirit (See I Corinthians 15:35-44 for an explanation of the resurrected body form. It is much like the seed of corn (physical body) and the stalk of corn (spiritual body)).

Conclusion: The Spirit of Christ was the Spirit of God in Christ, which has been sent to indwell the Church (the disciples first but not ending with them) as the Comforter, beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2.

apostoli

November 16th 2005, 01:40 PM

Hi Daco,

Thankyou for replying. Sorry for the delay in this reply but I wanted to have a think about what you said...

You've made reference to Col 2:9, and I presume put emphasis on the term "bodily". Col 1:19 doesn't make that qualification and reading Col 1:13-19 we are told that "the Son...is before all things and by him all things consist." To me: this seems to contradict what you have said. How is this reconciled?Colossians 1:13-20: "13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
beginning

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"

Verses 13-14 indicate that the deliverance, translation, and redemption accomplished by Jesus for us was done through His blood or after His death, burial, and resurrection and not in any time pre-existing.

Verse 15 declares Jesus to be the invisible God made visible or the eternal Spirit in the form of man i.e. the Word made flesh. Being the firstborn of every creature simply refers to His resurrection. While all will one day rise from the dead, Jesus was the first to rise into the realm where death no longer has dominion (even when Lazarus was raised from the dead, he was subject to die again).

Verses 16-17 This is describing who Jesus was before His birth into this world. He was Creator of all things visible and invisible, principalities and powers, etc. He spoke them all into existence. All things were created by Him and for Him, for He was the Almighty God.

Verse 18-19 brings us back to considering Him since His Incarnation. He is the head of the Church. Once again, referencing His resurrection from the dead, He is the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He (the man Christ Jesus) might have the preeminence. It pleased the eternal Spirit (the Father) that in Him (the man/flesh Christ Jesus - or an implication of emphasis on bodily as in chapter 2:9) should all fulness dwell.
When Paul speaks of the Son being before all things, etc. he is instructing the Colossians that before Jesus was born into this world, He was the Almighty God. His entrance into the realm of humanity did not cause Him to cease to exist as God but in His humanity, He was pleased to include all that He is as God into the visible, tangible, approachable expression of Himself to mankind.

In John 14:16-18, 23, 26, Jesus used the term Holy Ghost and Comforter interchangeably. A ghost is the returned spirit of a dead man. Jesus is simply encouraging His disciples that while He is leaving them (through His death first, and later His Ascension) He would not leave them as orphans. He would send His returned Spirit to dwell in them. In verse 16, the Holy Ghost is mentioned as a third party. Verse 17 indentifies the Holy Ghost as the Spirit that lived in the person of Jesus: "... but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Verse 18 further identifies the Holy Ghost as being Jesus Himself: "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." Verse 18 indentifies the Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as the Father and that Spirit which dwelt in the Son: "we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

For someone who does not claim to understand much of Oneness, you have come pretty close, I would say. I would adjust your remarks in this fashion:
The Spirit of God was in Christ (II Corinthians 5:19). The man died on the cross, the Spirit quickened Him to a transformed, resurrected body (having flesh and bone according to Luke 24:39). He ascended into heaven as this resurrected man, not simply as a Spirit (See I Corinthians 15:35-44 for an explanation of the resurrected body form. It is much like the seed of corn (physical body) and the stalk of corn (spiritual body)).

Conclusion: The Spirit of Christ was the Spirit of God in Christ, which has been sent to indwell the Church (the disciples first but not ending with them) as the Comforter, beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2.

Thankyou Daco. Especially for taking the time for a detailed reply. I need to think on what you have said before I might raise any issues with which I might have concern. So please check in again, in about aweek or when you have time.

PS: On another thread, you might notice I've taken issue with John of Elber, but my concern in his case is what I perceive as his concealing his true belief and his general evasion and dishonesty. I might be unfair to him.

Please don't let that put you off conversing with me. I'm interested in why oneness believers understand as they do. If at any time I offend you, I apologise in advance. It is not intentional.

All the best...

Daco

November 16th 2005, 02:17 PM

Daco, you express yourself well and I appreciate your posts. So here's my question (which I asked a while ago and no one has responded): Do you believe that trinitarians are NOT Christians? Or do you believe that trinitarians are simply misguided but do worship the God of the Bible?

I know trinitarians who assert that those who are Oneness believers are NOT Christians. I attend a Oneness church. The people worship Jesus, give glory to God, respect the Holy Spirit. The scholars who say they are not Christians tell me it does not matter that they "appear" to worship the same Jesus--they have an entirely different view of God and so they are not worshipping the same God.

I do not agree with them. I am a trinitarian. I respect that my Oneness brothers and sisters have a different explanation of the Godhead. I think the Godhead is no easy subject. I have some difficulty seeing the apostle Paul standing at the entrance to heaven asking the lowliest and least educated member of my church, "Wait--before you can enter--what's your position on the Godhead?" Would he ask it of the pastor, or any leader? Maybe. But then there would be litmus test for entering heaven . . . do you agree?

If my fellow church members love and accept me with my "heretical" view, I can love and accept them though on this important subject we disagree strongly. I do believe this is a fundamental subject, but it's just not one that can be sorted out with ease.

Understanding the Godhead comes only by revelation. Luke 10:22, "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." It is important to have a right understanding of the Godhead. Concerning that, I reference what I wrote in a previous post that Jesus told the woman at the well in Samaria that the Samaritans were not clear about who they worshipped. The Jews, He said, knew who they worshipped. Now, if the trinity truly existed, Jesus would have had to tell her that the Jews were also unclear about who they worshipped as well. Since He did not admit this, it follows that the Jewish perspective on the Godhead is correct. God is One. He is not divided into multiple persons.

John 4:22-24, "22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

It is good that you are searching for truth regarding this subject. I agree that it is not an easy subject, but it does not have to remain mysterious to you. I would encourage you to continue following the Lord in the understanding you have while keeping a teachable spirit. Jesus will reveal the Godhead to you if you do this. He will give you clarity. Philip continued with the Lord during His earthly ministry and did not fully understand who Jesus was.

John 14:7-9, "7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Jesus said, "Show you the Father? Have I been with you all this time and you do not understand that I am the Father? How is it that you say, Show us the Father? Who do you think I have been showing you all this time?" (my paraphrase)

Our understanding of the Godhead does not change who God is.

Do you believe that trinitarians are NOT Christians? Or do you believe that trinitarians are simply misguided but do worship the God of the Bible?

I believe Christians are born again of the water and of the Spirit. What is important to me, is that I continue stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine. The trinitarian doctrine was forged over a long period of time by men who, while they may have been religious, were not necessarily born again of water and Spirit. Therefore, they were carnal minded men, to whom the Son had not revealed the Godhead. I see trinitarian terminology in the New Testament, but I do not hear the apostles teaching trinitarian doctrine when they use the terminology.

apostoli

November 17th 2005, 05:54 AM

Hi Daco,

For someone who does not claim to understand much of Oneness, you have come pretty close, I would say.I have an imperfect idea (gnosis) of the teaching, but not an understanding (epignosis). The way I figure it: I can't reject or accept something if I don't have a full and accurate knowledge of it. So please tolerate my queries :-]

I see trinitarian terminology in the New Testament, but I do not hear the apostles teaching trinitarian doctrine when they use the terminology.This gave me pause, as I must admit, in the context of an RCC (and other schismatic) teaching on the trinity, I agree with you. However, I might suggest that the Orthodox view reconciles the issue as they hold that there is only one God=the Father, who is the source and cause of all (which includes the Son).

Where I have an issue with oneness belief (assuming my understanding of the teaching is correct), is what I perceive as the denial of the Son's pre-existence in actuality (as opposed to potentiality). Particularly, I'm thinking 1 John 4:1 & 4:9-15. How does oneness belief reconcile A.John's teaching?

Thankyou for your patience.

Daco

November 17th 2005, 10:45 AM

Hi Daco,

I have an imperfect idea (gnosis) of the teaching, but not an understanding (epignosis). The way I figure it: I can't reject or accept something if I don't have a full and accurate knowledge of it. So please tolerate my queries :-]

This gave me pause, as I must admit, in the context of an RCC (and other schismatic) teaching on the trinity, I agree with you. However, I might suggest that the Orthodox view reconciles the issue as they hold that there is only one God=the Father, who is the source and cause of all (which includes the Son).

Where I have an issue with oneness belief (assuming my understanding of the teaching is correct), is what I perceive as the denial of the Son's pre-existence in actuality (as opposed to potentiality). Particularly, I'm thinking 1 John 4:1 & 4:9-15. How does oneness belief reconcile A.John's teaching?

Thankyou for your patience.

Hi Apostoli,

The way I figure it: I can't reject or accept something if I don't have a full and accurate knowledge of it.
I can certainly appreciate such a position. Many people reject out of hand anything that is not in line with their own beliefs.

Quote: Originally posted by Daco to schotzy post #232

I see trinitarian terminology in the New Testament, but I do not hear the apostles teaching trinitarian doctrine when they use the terminology.
Perhaps I did not use the best wording. What I meant to say was that I see the references to the Father, references to the Son, and references to the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; many times apart from one another but at times in combination with one or the other. Oneness does not deny that God manifests Himself in the role of Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. The Oneness position, as I understand it, simply sees the Father as Creator, God of the Old Testament (YHVH), the Son as the Incarnation of that God as one of us (that is, He was not just a "manifestation" for a time or season. God has taken on the human nature (yet, without sin), and the Holy Ghost is the same Spirit of God poured out (as the fire of God upon an accepted sacrifice [Lev.9:24, "And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces." Matthew 3:11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"]) to dwell within the lives of the redeemed. In this fashion, we have been made partakers of the divine nature.

Many times in opening salutations of New Testament epistles, especially those of Paul, Ephesians 1:2 says for example, "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." While from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ can sound like two different personalities, it is equally appropriate to translate kai as "even." This shifts the sound of it: from God our Father, even from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where I have an issue with oneness belief (assuming my understanding of the teaching is correct), is what I perceive as the denial of the Son's pre-existence in actuality (as opposed to potentiality). Particularly, I'm thinking 1 John 4:1 & 4:9-15. How does oneness belief reconcile A.John's teaching?

It is my understanding that John was writing to defend against the teachings of Gnosticism, i.e. that Jesus had not actually come in the flesh. They evidently taught that Jesus was some kind of spirit-man, or apparition, or He was like a man. John reinforces from time to time in his writings, especially in the first epistle the it is necessary to believe that Jesus came in the flesh.

I John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

I John 4:9-15, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

Concerning the idea of the Son pre-existing, I believe that the foreknowledge and counsel of God included the Son (Lamb) slain from the foundation of the world. I Peter 1:20, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," It was in the plan of God from the very beginning, before creation, that He would become one of us, and live among us, and reveal Himself to us, and ultimately offer Himself for us. But the verse says He was manifest in these last times. Before Mary conceived the human child in her womb, there was no literal Son. A son is only a son through the fact that he has been begotten by his father. Since God is a Spirit (John 4:24), I cannot see two pre-existing Spirits; one - the Spirit of the Father and the other - the Spirit of the Son. Furthermore, how would one eternal Spirit beget the other eternal Spirit? It doesn't make sense.

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Did God send a pre-existing Son into the world at the time of His birth at Bethlehem? No. The Son was sent into the world much like Jesus commissioned and sent His disciples into the world in John 17:18, "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world."

Again the call to confess that Jesus is the Son of God comes, I believe, out of John's argument against Gnosticism. He is declaring that Jesus was a real person. His humanity was real.

apostoli

November 17th 2005, 04:03 PM

Hi Daco,

Thanks again for your detailed posts. I'll think on your last post. For now, just a couple of comments...

Many times in opening salutations of New Testament epistles, especially those of Paul, Ephesians 1:2 says for example, "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." While from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ can sound like two different personalities, it is equally appropriate to translate kai as "even." This shifts the sound of it: from God our Father, even from the Lord Jesus Christ.I checked Strongs Lexicon "kai=and, also, even, indeed, but". I then checked all A.Paul's greetings in the KJV. Must admit I never paid attention to the italicised "from in "[i]from[/] our Lord Jesus Christ" before. Apart from dogma, I asked myself what authority did the translators use to insert "from" and it occurred to me context in relation to the surrounding text implies it. EG: Eph1:3 definitely distinguishes between two individualities "Blessed be the God [even the] Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

It is my understanding that John was writing to defend against the teachings of Gnosticism, i.e. that Jesus had not actually come in the flesh. They evidently taught that Jesus was some kind of spirit-man, or apparition, or He was like a man. John reinforces from time to time in his writings, especially in the first epistle that it is necessary to believe that Jesus came in the flesh.OK. A fair explanation. Though, I need to think on it.

Concerning the idea of the Son pre-existing, I believe that the foreknowledge and counsel of God included the Son (Lamb) slain from the foundation of the world. I Peter 1:20, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"OK. The foreordained idea is found in several places. In the context of 1 John, something else for me to think about.

I was going to raise the issue of how can something that doesn't exist be sent, but then I had a careful read of 1 John 4:9-15 and realised that my prior reading might be blinkered. That is: the "sent into the world" could refer to Jesus' ministry

9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him...
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."

It was in the plan of God from the very beginning, before creation, that He would become one of us, and live among us, and reveal Himself to us, and ultimately offer Himself for us.This is where I get confused with oneness belief.

As I understand it: the primary teaching is that God intervened in normal biology causing Mary to conceive a Son. And at sometime the Spirit of God tabernacled in Jesus. And the Spirit departed before Jesus expired on the cross.

Given this understanding (or maybe misunderstanding), I have a few issues with your comments above: Firstly, God didn't become one of us, he merely co-joined with Jesus (participated in his flesh), in much the same way as the angel of the Lord took on flesh and wrestled with Jacob. Secondly, God didn't offer Himself for us, merely discarded the expendable flesh of Jesus.

But the verse says He was manifest in these last times. Before Mary conceived the human child in her womb, there was no literal Son. A son is only a son through the fact that he has been begotten by his father. Since God is a Spirit (John 4:24), I cannot see two pre-existing Spirits; one - the Spirit of the Father and the other - the Spirit of the Son. Furthermore, how would one eternal Spirit beget the other eternal Spirit? It doesn't make sense.I know the Roman Catholics (for at least 800 years) and probably a big wack of the protestant and reformed churches would agree with you. They openly state "the Father is not the cause of the Son". In contrast the orthodox churches teach "the Father is the source and cause of the Son" and note that how he was begotten in his pre-existence is unknown and appeal to 1 Cor 2:11-12.

My view:
Though John 4:24 says "God is Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth", 1 John 4:16 also tells us that , "God is love, and he that dwells in love, dwells in God and God in him". To my mind, there is something of a dilemma: If we take "Spirit" as singularly defining God's existence then we create an unapproachable, unknowable God (Calvin's wrathful God). If we include "Love" then we find our benevolent Father. For him to have begotten a Child and then give him all things that are rightfully His own, shows God to be very unselfish as well (I'm thinking Col 1:15-19); and even moreso when he allowed that Son to suffer for us (I had a Son die from leukemia, and by personal experience I can atest that it is much harder to watch a loved one suffer than suffer yourself.)

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."The context of vs 8 is in vs 9 and is referring to man made gods. My standard reply is God himself at times appointed even men to be God for a time eg: Moses (Ex 4:15-16; 7:1).

Did God send a pre-existing Son into the world at the time of His birth at Bethlehem? No. The Son was sent into the world much like Jesus commissioned and sent His disciples into the world in John 17:18, "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world."Your appeal to John 17 has raised another issue in my mind. If the Son had no prior existence before his human birth how do you understand John 17:5 "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Again the call to confess that Jesus is the Son of God comes, I believe, out of John's argument against Gnosticism. He is declaring that Jesus was a real person. His humanity was real.I agree in principle. Though in detail I need to think on John's message.

Daco

November 30th 2005, 04:55 PM

[QUOTE=apostoli]As I understand it: the primary teaching is that God intervened in normal biology causing Mary to conceive a Son. And at sometime the Spirit of God tabernacled in Jesus. And the Spirit departed before Jesus expired on the cross.

Given this understanding (or maybe misunderstanding), I have a few issues with your comments above: Firstly, God didn't become one of us, he merely co-joined with Jesus (participated in his flesh), in much the same way as the angel of the Lord took on flesh and wrestled with Jacob. Secondly, God didn't offer Himself for us, merely discarded the expendable flesh of Jesus.

I apologize for the delay. I've been busy with holiday, and also giving consideration to your remarks and questions. Hopefully, I may have time to address this portion of your response.

I guess I thought Oneness and Trinitarians both agreed that God intervened in normal biology and caused Mary to conceive a Son. That is, I certainly believe that God- (Matthew 1:18, 20 says the Holy Ghost) overshadowed Mary and she conceived the child Jesus in her womb. To my mind, this is stating that the Holy Ghost is the Father of Jesus. I have a problem understanding who Trinitarians hold "the Father" to be the father of in regards to Jesus. I am also confused now as to how Trinitarians believe the Incarnation occurred...if God did not intervene in normal biology. By this, I do not mean nor believe that there was some type of sexual interaction between God and Mary. She was simply caused to conceive.

Now, the second portion of your phrase above, I disagree with. You say, And at sometime the Spirit of God tabernacled in Jesus. And the Spirit departed before Jesus expired on the cross. I believe that at conception, God became a human embryo and developed into the child Jesus when it was time for Him to be born. He did not cease to be God but He became a human being as well. He certainly did become one of us and not simply co-joined with Jesus, as you say. I therefore believe, unlike you have also stated, that Jesus is the permanent visible manifestation of God, that is, unlike the man who wrestled with Jacob, the man Jesus is not expendable (while He was expendable as pertaining to death, but of course rose again victorious over death). The resurrected body of Jesus had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), breathed (John 20:22), was capable of eating (Luke 24:41-43), and ascended into the heavens to someday return in like fashion. I say that, to say, that the flesh (resurrected) of Jesus is still the form God retains in heaven as He functions as our High Priest to this day (at least this is my understanding).

Now, as to whether the Spirit departed from the man on the cross at the time or slightly before His death, I am not certain how I feel about that. I do not believe that God (the Spirit) died. That is impossible. If the Spirit had to withdraw from the flesh in order for the flesh to die, I don't know.... I have always thought of it that way, but just prior to my registering on this website, I read a Oneness writer who did not believe the dual nature of Christ allowed the Spirit to withdraw. I'll have to investigate this topic and trust that you can appreciate my position on that.

My view:
Though John 4:24 says "God is Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth", 1 John 4:16 also tells us that , "God is love, and he that dwells in love, dwells in God and God in him". To my mind, there is something of a dilemma: If we take "Spirit" as singularly defining God's existence then we create an unapproachable, unknowable God (Calvin's wrathful God). If we include "Love" then we find our benevolent Father. For him to have begotten a Child and then give him all things that are rightfully His own, shows God to be very unselfish as well (I'm thinking Col 1:15-19); and even moreso when he allowed that Son to suffer for us (I had a Son die from leukemia, and by personal experience I can atest that it is much harder to watch a loved one suffer than suffer yourself.)

When I referenced John 4:24 I was not expecting that all God is is Spirit. Certainly God is love, and a multitude of other attributes. I meant that God is Spirit in singularity and not in plurality. However, I do not see how you jump from John 4:24 to an unapproachable, unknowable God (Calvin's wrathful God). While Jesus Himself said that no man knows God except He (Jesus) reveals Him to them, still I do not nor ever have found God to be unapproachable, perhaps unknowable until Jesus came, but not wrathful - at least until all other options of His mercies have been expended.

I do regret to hear of the loss of your son. I am also a father and I understand your point. However, I still find it difficult to see the greater expression of love in the Trinitarian view of the Father sending another person (His Son) to suffer for us. To me, the Oneness view demonstrates a greater expression of love in that God Himself became a man and in so doing He offered Himself for our sins.

Regards,
Daco