User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68

Thread: One-on-One: AMR and God's Truth The Holy Trinity

  1. #31
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I deny the trinity doctrine. I do not deny that there are three.
    Can you explain how these three relate to one another? Do they have personalities? What distinctions do you identify in each of the three? If there are no distinctions then what makes them “three” in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    It sounds as if you are describing modalism. Modalists do not believe the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit exist at the same time. I do not believe like that. I know they exist at the same time.
    Who exists at the same time exactly? If it is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet you deny any distinctions between them, what do you mean by saying they all exist simultaneously?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Why did you choose the word ‘manifestations’? That is kind of an odd choice of word. How exactly do you get that Jesus coming in the flesh is a manifestation?

    You have argued there are no distinctions between the persons of the Godhead. If there are none, then what remains is but manifestations of the one absolute God. So you must either admit your modalism or provide answers to my questions above.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Now you say they are not separate. That is an improvement. You say here again ‘essences’. Are you willing to admit that the essence is Spirit? If yes, then you just admitted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same Spirit. That would be the truth.

    I have always maintained that there is but one divine essence. There is but one divine being, not three. The words being and essence can be interchanged. I explained this in previous posts, but since you have stated you are not reading them, you force me to repeat myself often.

    Once again, GT, God is one being (essence, from esse , “to be”), three persons, or conversely, three persons, one being . The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each fully God. The whole of God (essence) is in each person, and each person is the whole God. Each person is God-in-himself. Each person possesses the entire being of God (the one divine essence) and the entire being of God is in each person. Thus, each person indwells each other—the three mutually contain (interpenetration) one another (perichoresis, see e.g., John 14:10-11, John 15:5; John17; 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:6.)—for the one being of God is undivided. This mutual indwelling means that no person of the Trinity does anything without corresponding activities of the other two persons.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I do not think they are three humans.

    Nor do I. What is it about “person” as used in discussing the Trinity would make you think this means “human.” Please review my previous response where I discuss in detail how the word “person” is to be used when discussing the Godhead. If you do not read my posts then you are just going to be talking past me and requiring me to repeat myself often.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You do not want to say what essence God is because then you think you can better defend your false doctrine. If you are forced to speak according to the word, then you would have to stop calling God an essence, you would have to say that God is Spirit. Once you are forced to say God is Spirit, you will have to admit that there is only one Spirit. Once you admit there is only one Spirit, then you will have to admit that God is Spirit, and that same Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, you fight against the truth and deny it. Since you cannot be forced, we then spend much time with you arguing about nonsense.

    English is being used here, GT. When we use “essence” we are simply using a word that describes the essentiality of something. No one, GT, no one, denies God is Spirit. God is also light and love, won’t you agree? So why this continued sticking point? There is one absolute God. This one God possesses attributes that make God what He is. For God, these attributes inhere one another. All God’s attributes are primary, none can be elevated above the other to claim that the other attributes are somehow subordinate to something else in God. Hence, God is his attributes. When we speak of these attributes in their totality, we say they are God’s “essence”. So yes, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all Spirit, for this is one important aspect of the essence of God. If you would only take the time to read my responses you would have seen this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    In John 4:24 we read that God’s essential nature is spirit. Likewise in 1 John 1:5, God is light, and 1 John 4:8, God is love. God is not material and Jesus emphatically states God is Spirit to make the point that since God is essentially spirit it necessarily follows that worship of Him must be spiritual in kind. Jesus here, reminding us of his intimate knowledge (Matthew 11:27), declares God’s essence transcends that of all other spirits—human or angelic.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    That was nothing but falseness and contradictions when you say that they are not separate, but then say they are distinct. Distinct means different. They are not distinct. They are not different.

    If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct, not different, you are left with modalism, GT. Accept it or explain how you avoid modalism. Why do you think Scripture uses “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” if everything is the same? Have you reviewed the different aspects of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I have described in my previous post here? When Scripture teaches us that the Son of God assumed a human nature, do you claim the Holy Spirit and God the Father assumed a human nature?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You can say God is Spirit, but you will not say it.

    Actually I have said, GT, but you just have not read it. Please do so in this post and in my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The trinity doctrine will only say God is essence, but will not say what the essence is; thus the illusion of teaching something as if truth. When trinitarians are asked to explain some consequences to their beliefs, they merely deny them. When questioned about some consequences to their beliefs, they also say it is unexplainable. If it is not explainable, then there is no way you can defend it.

    I am defending the doctrine of the Trinity in this discussion. I have described what the Scriptures teach us about the essence of God in this thread in numerous places. Your statement is simply untrue. What is true, however, is that you have not provided a full disclosure of your own position. I continue to have to tease it out of you piecemeal. I am hoping you answer to my questions above will help create a better picture of what you exactly view.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    AMR, is this a copy and paste post? It is as if you are just throwing in ‘GT’occasionally to pretend this is a personal post to me. How do you expect me to read this long irrelevant post if you did not care enough to read it and edit it just for me? You did not take out the part where you say that Jesus is Divine that Jesus is God. I understand most people against the trinity doctrine need to understand that, and it proves that this is nothing more than a copy and paste.

    I am posting what I have posted, GT. That what I post applies to you and others only serves to make my point about how much confusion exists related to the doctrine of the Trinity. That is one reason why we are having this discussion—so I can point out these errors in one location and need not have to repeat myself in future discussions. Your admission that Jesus was fully God is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your denial of the doctrine of the Trinity—a doctrine that avoids all manner of heresy.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Your lazy editing is showing.

    Rather than this response, can you just answer the question: Was Jesus’ divinity a different substance than that of God the Father?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus had a flesh body and his Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

    Did Jesus possess a rational human soul? Why are you avoiding the question?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus is not distinct from God.

    Hopefully your responses to all my questions in this post will shed some light on exactly what you mean by this.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Is not that what the trinitarians also believe?

    No Trinitarian believes God is acting in the form of the Son. You have not read my responses thoroughly or you would know this by now. What is your answer to the question?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus had an earthly side and a Divine side.

    Were the divine and human natures mixed together in Jesus Christ? (You are not plainly answering most of my questions, GT.)

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    There is weakness in being a human.

    Was the divine nature changed in any way by the assumption of a human nature?


    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    God came as a man.

    Was there a divine person and a human person in Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus came in the flesh, but he was no mere man.

    When you say “Jesus” came in the flesh, do you mean Jesus pre-existed in heaven before coming in the flesh? Did Jesus possess a true humanity as well as divinity?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus is God come in the flesh. God did not stop existing.

    So you would agree that God the Son was still omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient while walking the roads of Palestine in the assumed humanity of Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You speak as if God over took a man’s body.

    God the Son took on (assumed) a human nature, which included a human body. My question concerns what you believe about this assumption. Did Jesus exist prior to this assumption? When this humanity was assumed by God the Son, were any of the divine attributes communicated to the humanity?

    GT, thank you for answering a few of my questions. If you can provide more detailed answers it will help form a more complete picture of your views such that I can respond more appropriately.


    AMR

    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  2. #32
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Can you explain how these three relate to one another? Do they have personalities? What distinctions do you identify in each of the three? If there are no distinctions then what makes them “three” in your opinion?
    God lives in unapproachable light. He made Himself a body, a Spiritual body, of the Man Jesus Christ. He is Jesus, but not yet known as Jesus, not until he came in the flesh. He is the First over all creation. He has the resurrected Spiritual body, the body we receive lastly. Jesus is the First and the Last.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Who exists at the same time exactly? If it is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet you deny any distinctions between them, what do you mean by saying they all exist simultaneously?
    God the Father lives in unapproachable light. Jesus existed with God before coming to earth; He existed in the Spiritual body of the Man Jesus. Jesus in the flesh is God come as a Son of Man, a Son of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You have argued there are no distinctions between the persons of the Godhead. If there are none, then what remains is but manifestations of the one absolute God. So you must either admit your modalism or provide answers to my questions above.
    Modalists do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist at the same time. Again, I do not believe that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I have always maintained that there is but one divine essence. There is but one divine being, not three. The words being and essence can be interchanged. I explained this in previous posts, but since you have stated you are not reading them, you force me to repeat myself often.

    Once again, GT, God is one being (essence, from esse , “to be”), three persons, or conversely, three persons, one being . The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each fully God. The whole of God (essence) is in each person, and each person is the whole God. Each person is God-in-himself. Each person possesses the entire being of God (the one divine essence) and the entire being of God is in each person. Thus, each person indwells each other—the three mutually contain (interpenetration) one another (perichoresis, see e.g., John 14:10-11, John 15:5; John17; 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:6.)—for the one being of God is undivided. This mutual indwelling means that no person of the Trinity does anything without corresponding activities of the other two persons.
    There are not three separate Gods. There is three and One God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    English is being used here, GT. When we use “essence” we are simply using a word that describes the essentiality of something. No one, GT, no one, denies God is Spirit. God is also light and love, won’t you agree?
    You need to stop saying God is essence. God’s essence is Spirit. Say God is Spirit.
    God is also light. Say then that God is light, but do not just say God is essence. You will miss the truth if you do not speak according to the scriptures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct, not different, you are left with modalism, GT. Accept it or explain how you avoid modalism. Why do you think Scripture uses “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” if everything is the same? Have you reviewed the different aspects of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I have described in my previous post here? When Scripture teaches us that the Son of God assumed a human nature, do you claim the Holy Spirit and God the Father assumed a human nature?
    They are exactly the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Actually I have said, GT, but you just have not read it. Please do so in this post and in my previous post.
    Stop saying God is essence. Say what essence God is, then you might see the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I am defending the doctrine of the Trinity in this discussion. I have described what the Scriptures teach us about the essence of God in this thread in numerous places. Your statement is simply untrue. What is true, however, is that you have not provided a full disclosure of your own position. I continue to have to tease it out of you piecemeal. I am hoping you answer to my questions above will help create a better picture of what you exactly view.
    I always answer you. I want to say, this is the first time that you are listening to me better and discussing this topic more deeply. Thank you for discussing with me and not just posting a lesson for me to read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Rather than this response, can you just answer the question: Was Jesus’ divinity a different substance than that of God the Father?
    Jesus is the same as God the Father. The flesh counts for nothing.
    Jesus is the Spirit of God come to us in the flesh.
    John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Did Jesus possess a rational human soul? Why are you avoiding the question?
    Jesus’ Spirit is the Holy Spirit. If you think that Jesus had the spirit of a man, then how did he come from heaven? Then how is it his Father is God? Then where is the spirit of the Man Jesus now? Jesus is Spirit and he is the Spirit of God come to us in the flesh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Hopefully your responses to all my questions in this post will shed some light on exactly what you mean by this.
    Thank you again for discussing deeper with me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    No Trinitarian believes God is acting in the form of the Son.
    Please clarify. Are you saying you do not believe God came in the flesh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Were the divine and human natures mixed together in Jesus Christ? (You are not plainly answering most of my questions, GT.)
    Just because you are having a hard time understanding does not mean I am not answering plainly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Was the divine nature changed in any way by the assumption of a human nature?
    God came as a Man, so there is something that is different; however, it is still God who came as a Man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Was there a divine person and a human person in Jesus?
    I believe Jesus’ flesh was sacred, being born of God. Jesus’ Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
    If you believe you are saved and have the Holy Spirit living inside you…you are still you, you are not God in the flesh. Jesus is God in the flesh, and his Spirit is the Spirit of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    When you say “Jesus” came in the flesh, do you mean Jesus pre-existed in heaven before coming in the flesh?
    Jesus says the Son of Man came from heaven.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Did Jesus possess a true humanity as well as divinity?
    Jesus was in heaven with the Spiritual body of the Man Jesus. Jesus had this body First. We receive the Spiritual body last, at the resurrection. We shall be made like him.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    So you would agree that God the Son was still omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient while walking the roads of Palestine in the assumed humanity of Jesus?
    Since Jesus is God come as a Man, then of course, there are limits because of being in a human body.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    God the Son took on (assumed) a human nature, which included a human body. My question concerns what you believe about this assumption. Did Jesus exist prior to this assumption?
    As you can see by now, I have been answering this question above, and you hopefully understand better what I have been saying.
    Jesus existed with a Spiritual Body (not just a Spirit, but a Spiritual body) before coming to earth in a flesh body.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    When this humanity was assumed by God the Son, were any of the divine attributes communicated to the humanity?
    God came as a human. Jesus is God in the flesh, He learned as humans learn, He grew in stature, and in wisdom, as a human would learn and grow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    GT, thank you for answering a few of my questions. If you can provide more detailed answers it will help form a more complete picture of your views such that I can respond more appropriately.

    AMR
    I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you again.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  3. #33
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    God lives in unapproachable light. He made Himself a body, a Spiritual body, of the Man Jesus Christ. He is Jesus, but not yet known as Jesus, not until he came in the flesh. He is the First over all creation. He has the resurrected Spiritual body, the body we receive lastly. Jesus is the First and the Last.

    What do you mean by “He made Himself a body, a Spiritual body”? Did this spiritual body exist in heaven before the incarnation?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    God the Father lives in unapproachable light. Jesus existed with God before coming to earth; He existed in the Spiritual body of the Man Jesus. Jesus in the flesh is God come as a Son of Man, a Son of God.

    You are not giving a precise answer to my question. You also ignore the Holy Spirit and focus on God the Father and God the Son. What exactly do you see as any differences between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Next you state that Jesus existed before the incarnation. Are you confusing the Divine Logos with the man, Jesus, or do you really mean to state that Jesus really existed with God before the incarnation? This would be akin to Mormonism which you deny, yet your words imply otherwise. Let’s be more precise in our answers to avoid confusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    There are not three separate Gods. There is three and One God.

    You dismiss my very thorough reply to your earlier complaint that I am speaking of three Gods. You do not interact at all with what I have offered in support of my position. This is becoming increasingly disappointing as you wave off my arguments and merely repeat your snippets over and over again making no attempt to elaborate on these assertions. We are debating this matter and this requires you to do more than merely state “There are not three separate Gods” as if this describes my position (it does not). If you genuinely believe this is the position of Trinitarians, you must attempt to show how this is so in detail—not just assert it. Please review my response that you quoted and offer more than just brief retorts.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You need to stop saying God is essence. God’s essence is Spirit. Say God is Spirit. God is also light. Say then that God is light, but do not just say God is essence. You will miss the truth if you do not speak according to the scriptures.
    Good that you note that I reminded you that God is also light. God is also love. You need to come to grips with what the word essence means. Do you? You are in effect arguing that we cannot use words to describe Scriptural doctrines unless these words appear explicitly in Scripture. The word incarnation does not appear in Scripture, yet the word describes the first coming of the Lord from Scripture. Should we not use the word incarnation? When Scripture mentions the bride of our Lord, are we not permitted to use the word church? You must see how foolish your continued resistance to the word essence is becoming.


    What are you so fearful about concerning this simple word? As I noted above, you refuse to interact with my discussion of the word as it relates to the essential being of God. If you would take the time to study the matter, perhaps your resistance would evaporate. Lastly, please do not misquote me. I have never stated “God is essence”. I only use the word as a noun to describe the objective aspect of God. When someone is speaking about “who God is”, it is perfectly proper to speak about “the essence of God”. This essence of God is spirit, light, love, and more as I have stated, and you have ignored. If truth is being missed here it seems to me you are missing the truth more than anyone in this discussion. If truth is on your side, you have failed to make that truth known plainly. This discussion has went on for many pages now and it yet remains to anyone reading the discussion what your defense is for your views. You have asserted your view but offer no defense in support of said view. Please commence to do so. I am ready and willing to read all that you have to offer in your defense. I will not complain that you are writing too many words to instruct me for I welcome proper instruction when it is proffered.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    They are exactly the same.

    You ignored my comments. Please review my words and offer a direct answer to the three questions asked:
    1. Why do you think Scripture uses “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” if everything is the same?
    2. Have you reviewed the different aspects of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I have described in my previous post here?
    3. When Scripture teaches us that the Son of God assumed a human nature, do you claim the Holy Spirit and God the Father assumed a human nature?

    Your waving off of my questions and comments does not serve your purpose well. Recall that you wanted this debate with me:
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You do not debate me because you know you will lose.

    Here I stand ready to interact with your views. I am not afraid of losing any debate if my loss means I have come to a greater understanding of the truths I hold dear. When do you intend to demonstrate that I know I will lose in a debate with you, for it has yet to be shown? Can you back up this bold claim of yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus is the same as God the Father. The flesh counts for nothing.
    Jesus is the Spirit of God come to us in the flesh.

    When you say “Jesus is the same as God the Father” do you mean that the God the Son and God the Father share the same divinity in its totality? You continue to use “Jesus” when we are speaking of the Godhead before the incarnation. Before the incarnation there was no “Jesus”, but only the Divine Logos, God the Son. But, as you have stated often, “Jesus” somehow existed in some spiritual body even before the incarnation. You also state this spiritual body is just like the one all believers will possess in their glory. Please defend the view that Jesus pre-existed the incarnation in a spiritual body as it is part and parcel a Mormonistic notion.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus’ Spirit is the Holy Spirit. If you think that Jesus had the spirit of a man, then how did he come from heaven? Then how is it his Father is God? Then where is the spirit of the Man Jesus now? Jesus is Spirit and he is the Spirit of God come to us in the flesh

    Again, please answer the question: Did Jesus possess a rational human soul? This question only needs a yes or no answer. We are not speaking of “Jesus’ Spirit”, whatever that may mean to you. Your response seems to imply that if Jesus possessed a rational human soul he could not have come from heaven. I suppose that would be the case in some contorted logic, given your view that Jesus pre-existed the incarnation. This “pre-existence” of Jesus issue is one of the roots of your various odd positions and you really need to explain how you come to this position when there is no Scripture to support the idea that Jesus pre-existed before he was born.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Please clarify. Are you saying you do not believe God came in the flesh?

    Note that I am not saying that God did not come in the flesh. He did. I clearly stated that no Trinitarian believes God is acting in the form of the Son. In other words, the incarnation was not some chimera, some illusion, but a real presence of the fully God and the fully human in the Theanthropos, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Just because you are having a hard time understanding does not mean I am not answering plainly.

    GT, if you cannot plainly explain what you believe then you have failed to defend your position. I am not making this up as some debate bluster, but simply stating the obvious. Shall a poll be contructed to determine who is actually meeting their burden in this discussion? Would you then agree with the results of this poll?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    God came as a Man, so there is something that is different; however, it is still God who came as a Man.

    What “something” was different? What, if anything, was changed in the divine by the assumption of the humanity?
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I believe Jesus’ flesh was sacred, being born of God. Jesus’ Spirit is the Holy Spirit. If you believe you are saved and have the Holy Spirit living inside you…you are still you, you are not God in the flesh. Jesus is God in the flesh, and his Spirit is the Spirit of God.

    This flowery language is avoiding the answer to a direct question: “Was there a divine person and a human person in Jesus?” Why are you unwilling to answer direct questions?
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus was in heaven with the Spiritual body of the Man Jesus. Jesus had this body First. We receive the Spiritual body last, at the resurrection. We shall be made like him.

    Do you agree that Jesus pre-existed the Incarnation, not as the eternal Son but as the eternal Spirit of God?
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Since Jesus is God come as a Man, then of course, there are limits because of being in a human body.

    What limitations of the divinity were present? Please explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    As you can see by now, I have been answering this question above, and you hopefully understand better what I have been saying.
    Jesus existed with a Spiritual Body (not just a Spirit, but a Spiritual body) before coming to earth in a flesh body.

    I am glad you are making your position clear that Jesus existed with a spiritual body before coming to earth. The depths of your heresies are becoming plain for all to see.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; December 6th, 2013 at 09:11 PM. Reason: Change "Not" to "Note that"
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  4. #34
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    What do you mean by “He made Himself a body, a Spiritual body”? Did this spiritual body exist in heaven before the incarnation?
    I have already told you that it did.
    I understand that you are steeped in your doctrines, but how many times do I have to explain everything to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    You are not giving a precise answer to my question.
    You are speaking untruth.

    Just because you do not understand what I am saying it does not mean I am not precise. It is very clear what I am saying. You are ensnared. How much plainer can I say it? God did not have a body until He created Himself one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    You also ignore the Holy Spirit and focus on God the Father and God the Son.
    No way, I do not ignore the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Holy Spirit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    What exactly do you see as any differences between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Next you state that Jesus existed before the incarnation. Are you confusing the Divine Logos with the man, Jesus, or do you really mean to state that Jesus really existed with God before the incarnation? This would be akin to Mormonism which you deny, yet your words imply otherwise. Let’s be more precise in our answers to avoid confusion.
    It is not so because you say it is.
    I thought you regarded yourself as an educated man. Mormons do not believe Jesus is God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    You dismiss my very thorough reply to your earlier complaint that I am speaking of three Gods. You do not interact at all with what I have offered in support of my position. This is becoming increasingly disappointing as you wave off my arguments and merely repeat your snippets over and over again making no attempt to elaborate on these assertions.
    If you do not understand, there is a reason, and it is not because I am not explaining it clear enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    We are debating this matter and this requires you to do more than merely state “There are not three separate Gods” as if this describes my position (it does not).
    You absolutely do state that there are three separate Gods.
    You say there is a God the Father.
    Another God Jesus.
    Another God the Holy Spirit.

    You say they are different.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    If you genuinely believe this is the position of Trinitarians, you must attempt to show how this is so in detail—not just assert it. Please review my response that you quoted and offer more than just brief retorts.
    I have already shown you where trinitarians err.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Good that you note that I reminded you that God is also light. God is also love. You need to come to grips with what the word essence means. Do you?
    I have already said it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    You are in effect arguing that we cannot use words to describe Scriptural doctrines unless these words appear explicitly in Scripture.
    Your mixed up trinitarian doctrine says God is essence. You refuse to speak according to the word. God is light, and Jesus is EXACTLY the SAME light. God is Spirit, and Jesus is EXACTLY the SAME Spirit. God is love, and Jesus is exactly the SAME love.

    Again, you keep saying essence because your doctrine is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    The word incarnation does not appear in Scripture, yet the word describes the first coming of the Lord from Scripture. Should we not use the word incarnation? When Scripture mentions the bride of our Lord, are we not permitted to use the word church? You must see how foolish your continued resistance to the word essence is becoming.
    We are debating about what the written Word of God says.
    If you say God is essence, and that Jesus is that same essence, then you have just admitted that Jesus has the same Spirit as God. However, you deny that and say essence. Essence allows you to be confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    What are you so fearful about concerning this simple word?
    You are making up things about me. I am not fearful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    As I noted above, you refuse to interact with my discussion of the word as it relates to the essential being of God. If you would take the time to study the matter, perhaps your resistance would evaporate. Lastly, please do not misquote me. I have never stated “God is essence”. I only use the word as a noun to describe the objective aspect of God. When someone is speaking about “who God is”, it is perfectly proper to speak about “the essence of God”. This essence of God is spirit, light, love, and more as I have stated, and you have ignored.
    You make no sense. Of course, you say God is essence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    If truth is being missed here it seems to me you are missing the truth more than anyone in this discussion. If truth is on your side, you have failed to make that truth known plainly. This discussion has went on for many pages now and it yet remains to anyone reading the discussion what your defense is for your views. You have asserted your view but offer no defense in support of said view. Please commence to do so. I am ready and willing to read all that you have to offer in your defense. I will not complain that you are writing too many words to instruct me for I welcome proper instruction when it is proffered.
    I have explained my beliefs plainly and clearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    You ignored my comments. Please review my words and offer a direct answer to the three questions asked:
    1. Why do you think Scripture uses “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” if everything is the same?
    2. Have you reviewed the different aspects of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I have described in my previous post here?
    3. When Scripture teaches us that the Son of God assumed a human nature, do you claim the Holy Spirit and God the Father assumed a human nature?

    Your waving off of my questions and comments does not serve your purpose well. Recall that you wanted this debate with me:
    I have answered your questions. Go study them some more.

    You are the one who has a doctrine that says they cannot explain how Jesus is God but not the Father.

    Why haven’t you explained it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Here I stand ready to interact with your views. I am not afraid of losing any debate if my loss means I have come to a greater understanding of the truths I hold dear. When do you intend to demonstrate that I know I will lose in a debate with you, for it has yet to be shown? Can you back up this bold claim of yours?
    You are too ensnared to see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    When you say “Jesus is the same as God the Father” do you mean that the God the Son and God the Father share the same divinity in its totality? You continue to use “Jesus” when we are speaking of the Godhead before the incarnation. Before the incarnation there was no “Jesus”, but only the Divine Logos, God the Son.
    Lol Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD. Jesus says he is the Son of Man, and that HE CAME FROM HEAVEN.
    See John 6:62, and John 3:13.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    But, as you have stated often, “Jesus” somehow existed in some spiritual body even before the incarnation. You also state this spiritual body is just like the one all believers will possess in their glory. Please defend the view that Jesus pre-existed the incarnation in a spiritual body as it is part and parcel a Mormonistic notion.
    Someone taught you wrong about the Mormons. Mormons do not believe Jesus IS GOD; they believe he is a god. Kind of close to the trinitarians doctrine, go find where I already explained this to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Again, please answer the question:
    Go back and read what I already answered. Study it harder.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Did Jesus possess a rational human soul? This question only needs a yes or no answer. We are not speaking of “Jesus’ Spirit”, whatever that may mean to you. Your response seems to imply that if Jesus possessed a rational human soul he could not have come from heaven.
    Flesh and blood did not exist in heaven.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Not I am not saying that God did not come in the flesh. He did. I clearly stated that no Trinitarian believes God is acting in the form of the Son. In other words, the incarnation was not some chimera, some illusion, but a real presence of the fully God and the fully human in the Theanthropos, the God-man, Jesus Christ.
    You contradict yourself. Your doctrine is nonsense. You say God came in the flesh but was not acting in the form of the Son. If God came in the flesh, and He did---That means God came in the form of a Man. Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    GT, if you cannot plainly explain what you believe then you have failed to defend your position. I am not making this up as some debate bluster, but simply stating the obvious. Shall a poll be contructed to determine who is actually meeting their burden in this discussion? Would you then agree with the results of this poll?
    Are you really so dull? It is kind of like asking the Jews if Jesus is lying.
    You are beyond ridiculous for suggesting a poll. Lol
    I am not impressed with the beliefs of the many. Only a few find the Truth.
    Your denomination, as the Catholics are the many. Don’t you agree that there are many Catholics and Reformed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    What “something” was different? What, if anything, was changed in the divine by the assumption of the humanity?
    God came as a Son of Man. If you cannot understand how that is different than you have no understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    This flowery language is avoiding the answer to a direct question: “Was there a divine person and a human person in Jesus?” Why are you unwilling to answer direct questions?
    I have already answered this.
    Your way of debating is to pretend you did not see my answer, then falsely accuse me of being unwilling to answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Do you agree that Jesus pre-existed the Incarnation, not as the eternal Son but as the eternal Spirit of God?
    God IS Spirit. Jesus is God, and then Jesus is Spirit. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the visible of the invisible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    What limitations of the divinity were present? Please explain.
    A human is lower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I am glad you are making your position clear that Jesus existed with a spiritual body before coming to earth. The depths of your heresies are becoming plain for all to see.

    AMR
    Jesus is the First and the Last.
    You deny the Truth.
    Last edited by God's Truth; December 5th, 2013 at 09:30 PM.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  5. #35
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I have already told you that it did.
    I understand that you are steeped in your doctrines, but how many times do I have to explain everything to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post

    … God did not have a body until He created Himself one.
    You have not answered the questions:
    What do you mean by “He made Himself a body, a Spiritual body”?
    Did this spiritual body exist in heaven before the incarnation?


    I assure you that if you give me direct answers to my questions I will not be repeating them.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
    Do you think that when Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, no real distinctions exist between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. How do you explain John 14:16 in light of your position? If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, why does Jesus say “another Helper”? And if you examine John 14:26 you have God the Father stating he will send the Holy Spirit, which also teaches us there is a distinction between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. With just two verses you have clear distinctions being made within the Godhead.
    So can you reconcile these with whatever Scripture you rely upon to claim that Jesus is the Holy Spirit?
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    It is not so because you say it is. I thought you regarded yourself as an educated man. Mormons do not believe Jesus is God.

    Your frequent sarcasm is noted. These deflections are not aiding the discussion. You have stated that Jesus existed before the incarnation. I was, and again am asking if perhaps you have confused the Divine Logos with the man, Jesus. Oftentimes I find that persons when discussing the Trinity prior to the incarnation use “Jesus” when they really mean God the Son, the Divine Logos. Using “Jesus” is only appropriate in the context of the incarnation. Given this, do you believe that Jesus existed prior to the incarnation or do you really mean God the Son existed prior to the incarnation?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    If you do not understand, there is a reason, and it is not because I am not explaining it clear enough.
    Your comment is in response to my…

    You dismiss my very thorough reply to your earlier complaint that I am speaking of three Gods. You do not interact at all with what I have offered in support of my position. This is becoming increasingly disappointing as you wave off my arguments and merely repeat your snippets over and over again making no attempt to elaborate on these assertions.
    I have obviously mistook you as someone who was willing to honestly engage me in a discussion of your views. I have precisely explained Trinitarianism, explaining my terms and the context in which I use them. I have not hesitated to then re-explain many concepts, all in the hopes that you would engage me at the same level of thoroughness. It would seem to me that given the level of your participation in Trinity related topics at TOL, wherein you very regularly chime in to claim Trinitarians are all in error, that you would relish the chance to carefully explain your views and illustrate to everyone exactly why Trinitarians are in error. As things stand, all you seem willing to do is what you have been doing in the forums—just assert you are right, Trinitarians are wrong, with very little effort to justify these assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You absolutely do state that there are three separate Gods.
    You say there is a God the Father.
    Another God Jesus.
    Another God the Holy Spirit.
    You say they are different.
    Perhaps you have (1)not read my detailed responses; (2)read my responses and do not understand them; or (3)read my responses and refuse to acknowledge their content.

    The distinctions I have described between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not ontological differences. Do you understand what this statement means? I would rather you admit when you do not understand me than simply dismissing my comments by putting words in my mouth. Constructing straw men of Trinitarians’ views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore believe about our beliefs what you believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Your mixed up trinitarian doctrine says God is essence. You refuse to speak according to the word. God is light, and Jesus is EXACTLY the SAME light. God is Spirit, and Jesus is EXACTLY the SAME Spirit. God is love, and Jesus is exactly the SAME love.

    Again, you keep saying essence because your doctrine is false.
    Would the word substance be more acceptable to you? This continual fixation you have about the word essence has become enervating. Have you ever used the word essentially in a sentence, or conversation? Does this usage not imply you are trying to get to the bottom line of some topic? To sum many concepts into one nugget of truth? When I use the word essence I am not saying “God is essence.” Carefully review my use of the word in this One-on-One and you will find this to be the case. What I am saying is that Light, Love, Spirit, and so on all comprise the divine essence of God. Unless we refuse to speak of God, we have to use words, even when these words are inadequate to describe ineffability. As long as we acknowledge and define our terms, edifying conversation can proceed.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I have answered your questions.
    You are the one who has a doctrine that says they cannot explain how Jesus is God but not the Father.
    Why haven’t you explained it?

    How would you even know if I explained it, GT, since you have stated you are not reading my posts because it would be too many words for you to read?

    Please identify the person who has stated they cannot explain “how Jesus is God but not the Father”. I do not know who would say this as it is imprecise and could be interpreted to mean that the Father is not God. Unlike you, I am not careless with my words on this topic. Perhaps you need to rephrase? I have repeatedly stated that Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, that there is but one God and none of the persons of the Godhead are the other persons of the Godhead. These subsistences are not three separate Gods. The three persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) co-inhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. Each of the Persons has a distinct mode of subsistence, such that we can say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Lol Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD. Jesus says he is the Son of Man, and that HE CAME FROM HEAVEN.
    See John 6:62, and John 3:13

    “Lol”? Are you taking this discussion seriously or are you very young? I do not know.

    John 3:13 and 6:62 speak to the divinity of Jesus, not that Jesus the man came from Heaven. Please see my earlier point about the Son of Man designation here, in particular:

    Jesus was fully God and fully man. The divinity of Jesus assumed a humanity. That divinity, the Son of God, the Divine Logos, existed before that humanity. Contrary to your view, the Son of God was not in heaven in a spiritual body before the incarnation and John 6:62 does not support your view.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Flesh and blood did not exist in heaven.

    Yes, flesh and blood does not exist in heaven and of course, I have never claimed otherwise. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Did Jesus possess a rational human soul?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You contradict yourself. Your doctrine is nonsense. You say God came in the flesh but was not acting in the form of the Son. If God came in the flesh, and He did---That means God came in the form of a Man. Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.

    You misunderstand the word “form” being used in this context. You do so because you have stated you are not reading my responses. Thus I must repeat myself once more. By “form” as used in my statement I mean the incarnation was not some masquerade or illusion of just God acting as different personas. If you do some self-examination this is precisely your own position. You believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all identical, with no differences. These are your own words. This means that they are all but illusions of the one absolute God. This is your view, GT, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Are you really so dull?

    No I am not.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I have already answered this.
    Your way of debating is to pretend you did not see my answer, then falsely accuse me of being unwilling to answer.

    Please point me to the specific answer? I do not ask questions over and over again if they have been answered plainly. Was Jesus fully divine and fully human?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    God IS Spirit. Jesus is God, and then Jesus is Spirit. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the visible of the invisible.
    My question was intended to point out your view more plainly. I, of course disagree with the question I have asked, while you affirm it to be so. The source of my question is:

    David K. Bernard, Essentials of Oneness Theology, Word Aflame Press, Hazelwood, MO, USA, 1995, pages 21-22).
    Thank you for confirming your Oneness leanings.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    A human is lower.
    My question, “What limitations of the divinity were present?” as relates to the incarnation has nothing to do with the humanity assumed by God the Son. I am asking you if you believe that by this assumption of humanity some limitations or changes took place in God the Son. Your answer?


    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; December 6th, 2013 at 11:57 PM. Reason: Grammar cleanup
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  6. #36
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    GT's views are adequately summarized by the following:
    It is clear that the terms "Father," "Son," and
    "Holy Ghost" cannot imply three different persons,
    personalities, wills, or beings. They can only denote
    different aspects or roles of one Spirit-being-the one
    God. They describe God's relationships to humanity,
    not persons in a Godhead.

    The Father Is the Holy Ghost
    The Deity of Jesus Christ Is the Father
    The Deity of Jesus Christ Is the Holy Ghost
    It is clear that the terms "Father," "Son," and
    "Holy Ghost" cannot imply three different persons,
    personalities, wills, or beings. They can only denote
    different aspects or roles of one Spirit-being-the one
    God. They describe God's relationships to humanity,
    not persons in a Godhead. We use "Father" to emphasize
    God's roles as Creator, Father of spirits, Father
    of the born-again believers, and Father of the humanity
    of Jesus Christ. We use "Son" to mean the man
    Jesus Christ and further to mean God as He manifested
    Himself in the flesh for the purpose of our salvation.
    We use "Holy Ghost" to emphasize God's active
    power in the world and among people, particularly
    His work in regeneration.
    The above are taken from Bernard, David K., Pentecostal Theology The Oneness of God, VOLUME 1. Bernard's book is part of the required reading of persons seeking ordination in the UPCI: www.upci.org

    Whether she will admit it or not, GT is but another UPCI Oneness proponent.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; December 7th, 2013 at 08:15 PM.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  7. #37
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    I assure you that if you give me direct answers to my questions I will not be repeating them.
    You will have to read and figure it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Do you think that when Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, no real distinctions exist between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. How do you explain John 14:16 in light of your position? If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, why does Jesus say “another Helper”?
    The “another Helper” is a form not in the flesh as Jesus was in front of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    And if you examine John 14:26 you have God the Father stating he will send the Holy Spirit, which also teaches us there is a distinction between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. With just two verses you have clear distinctions being made within the Godhead. So can you reconcile these with whatever Scripture you rely upon to claim that Jesus is the Holy Spirit?
    When God came as a Son of Man on earth, He remained in heaven in the unapproachable light.

    Jesus is the Holy Spirit. The scriptures say he is.


    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Your frequent sarcasm is noted. These deflections are not aiding the discussion. You have stated that Jesus existed before the incarnation. I was, and again am asking if perhaps you have confused the Divine Logos with the man, Jesus.
    Jesus is the Word of God. Are you really going to keep denying that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Oftentimes I find that persons when discussing the Trinity prior to the incarnation use “Jesus” when they really mean God the Son, the Divine Logos.
    Jesus is the Word of God; Jesus is the Son of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Using “Jesus” is only appropriate in the context of the incarnation. Given this, do you believe that Jesus existed prior to the incarnation or do you really mean God the Son existed prior to the incarnation?
    You have now confirmed that you believe the same as Keypurr.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Perhaps you have (1)not read my detailed responses; (2)read my responses and do not understand them; or (3)read my responses and refuse to acknowledge their content.
    The distinctions I have described between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not ontological differences. Do you understand what this statement means? I would rather you admit when you do not understand me than simply dismissing my comments by putting words in my mouth. Constructing straw men of Trinitarians’ views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore believe about our beliefs what you believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.
    You absolutely do state that there are three separate Gods.
    You say there is a God the Father.
    Another God Jesus.
    Another God the Holy Spirit.
    You say they are different.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Would the word substance be more acceptable to you?
    No.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    This continual fixation you have about the word essence has become enervating. Have you ever used the word essentially in a sentence, or conversation? Does this usage not imply you are trying to get to the bottom line of some topic? To sum many concepts into one nugget of truth? When I use the word essence I am not saying “God is essence.” Carefully review my use of the word in this One-on-One and you will find this to be the case. What I am saying is that Light, Love, Spirit, and so on all comprise the divine essence of God.
    If you do say that, then you have finally admitted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Unless we refuse to speak of God, we have to use words, even when these words are inadequate to describe ineffability. As long as we acknowledge and define our terms, edifying conversation can proceed.
    Stop using the word ‘essence’, then you might come to understand the truth better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    How would you even know if I explained it, GT, since you have stated you are not reading my posts because it would be too many words for you to read?

    Please identify the person who has stated they cannot explain “how Jesus is God but not the Father”. I do not know who would say this as it is imprecise and could be interpreted to mean that the Father is not God. Unlike you, I am not careless with my words on this topic. Perhaps you need to rephrase? I have repeatedly stated that Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, that there is but one God and none of the persons of the Godhead are the other persons of the Godhead.
    You make three different and separate gods.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    These subsistences are not three separate Gods. The three persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) co-inhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. Each of the Persons has a distinct mode of subsistence, such that we can say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.
    It is bizarre how you say you do not believe in three different gods, and then you describe three different gods.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    “Lol”? Are you taking this discussion seriously or are you very young? I do not know.

    John 3:13 and 6:62 speak to the divinity of Jesus, not that Jesus the man came from Heaven. Please see my earlier point about the Son of Man designation here, in particular:
    Jesus the Son of Man came from heaven. That is what the scriptures say.
    (Leviticus 26:11) (Leviticus 26:30) (Isaiah 42:1) (Zechariah 11:8) (Matthew 12:18) (Hebrews 10:38).

    These scriptures speak of God having a soul…a soul is a body with a spirit. If these scriptures are not about Jesus, and if Jesus did not exist in a Spiritual body, then how God who lives in unapproachable light that no one has seen have a body?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Jesus was fully God and fully man. The divinity of Jesus assumed a humanity. That divinity, the Son of God, the Divine Logos, existed before that humanity. Contrary to your view, the Son of God was not in heaven in a spiritual body before the incarnation and John 6:62 does not support your view.
    John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Yes, flesh and blood does not exist in heaven and of course, I have never claimed otherwise. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Did Jesus possess a rational human soul?
    A soul is a body with a spirit.
    Jesus’ Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    By “form” as used in my statement I mean the incarnation was not some masquerade or illusion of just God acting as different personas. If you do some self-examination this is precisely your own position. You believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all identical, with no differences. These are your own words. This means that they are all but illusions of the one absolute God. This is your view, GT, not mine.
    You speak nonsense. I do not believe as you say I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    My question was intended to point out your view more plainly. I, of course disagree with the question I have asked, while you affirm it to be so. The source of my question is:
    David K. Bernard, Essentials of Oneness Theology, Word Aflame Press, Hazelwood, MO, USA, 1995, pages 21-22).
    Thank you for confirming your Oneness leanings.
    You keep speaking untruths about me for your defense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    My question, “What limitations of the divinity were present?” as relates to the incarnation has nothing to do with the humanity assumed by God the Son. I am asking you if you believe that by this assumption of humanity some limitations or changes took place in God the Son. Your answer?
    God came as a Man.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  8. #38
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    GT's views are adequately summarized by the following:
    It is clear that the terms "Father," "Son," and
    "Holy Ghost" cannot imply three different persons,
    personalities, wills, or beings. They can only denote
    different aspects or roles of one Spirit-being-the one
    God. They describe God's relationships to humanity,
    not persons in a Godhead.
    God the Father is the Godhead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    The Father Is the Holy Ghost
    The Deity of Jesus Christ Is the Father
    The Deity of Jesus Christ Is the Holy Ghost
    It is clear that the terms "Father," "Son," and
    "Holy Ghost" cannot imply three different persons,
    personalities, wills, or beings. They can only denote
    different aspects or roles of one Spirit-being-the one
    God. They describe God's relationships to humanity,
    not persons in a Godhead.
    Again, God the Father is the Godhead, for there is only One God, and He is the Father.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    We use "Father" to emphasize
    God's roles as Creator, Father of spirits, Father
    of the born-again believers, and Father of the humanity
    of Jesus Christ. We use "Son" to mean the man
    Jesus Christ and further to mean God as He manifested
    Himself in the flesh for the purpose of our salvation.
    Jesus also existed in a Spiritual body before the creation of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    We use "Holy Ghost" to emphasize God's active
    power in the world and among people, particularly
    His work in regeneration.
    The above are taken from Bernard, David K., Pentecostal Theology The Oneness of God, VOLUME 1. Bernard's book is part of the required reading of persons seeking ordination in the UPCI: www.upci.org

    Whether she will admit it or not, GT is but another UPCI Oneness proponent.
    The Oneness people believe that ONLY ONE EXISTS AT ONE TIME. I do NOT believe that.
    God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist at the same time.

    I have now then shown you where I differ from the Oneness doctrine. There are probably even more ways in which we differ. I am not here to debate nor defend their doctrine.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  9. #39
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    GT’s continued lack of substantive response to my posts warrant combining into one bulk quotation. As shown below, rather than present arguments in support of her oneness views and respond to my explanations of the Scriptures, including those she quotes, GT simply repeats similar “I am right, you are wrong” statements with a few unexplained Scripture verses. This should not be altogether unexpected, after all, the only tools in the toolbox of the odd duck opinion overlaid upon desperately wooden literal hermeneutics.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    - You will have to read and figure it out.
    - The “another Helper” is a form not in the flesh as Jesus was in front of them.
    - When God came as a Son of Man on earth, He remained in heaven in the unapproachable light.
    - Jesus is the Holy Spirit. The scriptures say he is. 2 Corinthians 3:17;2 Corinthians 3:18
    - Jesus is the Word of God. Are you really going to keep denying that?
    - Jesus is the Word of God; Jesus is the Son of God.
    - You have now confirmed that you believe the same as Keypurr.
    - You absolutely do state that there are three separate Gods.
    - You say there is a God the Father.
    - Another God Jesus.
    - Another God the Holy Spirit.
    - You say they are different.
    - No.
    - If you do say that, then you have finally admitted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same.
    - Stop using the word ‘essence’, then you might come to understand the truth better.You make three different and separate gods.
    - It is bizarre how you say you do not believe in three different gods, and then you describe three different gods.
    - Jesus the Son of Man came from heaven. That is what the scriptures say.
    - These scriptures speak of God having a soul…a soul is a body with a spirit. If these scriptures are not about Jesus, and if Jesus did not exist in a Spiritual body, then how God who lives in unapproachable light that no one has seen have a body? Leviticus 26:11; Leviticus 26:30; Isaiah 42:1; Zechariah 11:8; Matthew 12:18; Hebrews 10:38
    - John 17:5
    - A soul is a body with a spirit.
    - Jesus’ Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
    - You speak nonsense. I do not believe as you say I do.
    - You keep speaking untruths about me for your defense.
    - God came as a Man.
    If others are following the discussion closely, they should have noted that GT shops around for some Scripture translations to support her preconceptions. Note that immediately above she quotes:
    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
    The first passage appears in the ESV, NIV, NRS, RSV, TNIV translations, while the second in only the TNIV. From this above I might conclude that GT is favoring the TNIV. An awful translation, but to each her own, I suppose.

    But, hold on now
    , when I examine, say this post here, I find GT using the Weymouth New Testament (for oh so obvious reasons)! These are two examples. GT never attributes the various translations she is using, and it is clear she is looking around for translations to bolster her position. This desperation is also sad and speaks to the aforementioned wooden literalism that guides GT’s views. Incapable of properly interpreting Scripture, she resorts to seeking out words that might fit her own presuppositions. Sigh. GT, my preferred translation is the NKJV or the KJV, but whatever you want to use is fine with me as long as you at least note you are using various translations hoping the bare words themselves will bolster your position.

    GT points to 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 to assert Jesus is the Holy Spirit. GT ignores the fact that in verses Paul is expounding Exodus 34:29–35 and the [i]veiledness[i] of the Jews. Paul is explaining the meaning of 2 Corinthians 3:16 as relates to the blindness of the Jews and when the veil is taken away—here speaking of the law written by Moses. When the Jews are able to Jesus Christ in the law the veil over their eyes will be lifted.

    So let’s look closer at some exposition of the passage…

    Back in 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 Paul is discussing how veiled are the Jews (see verse 13). Next Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Paul discusses how the veil is removed from those who turn to the Lord. Observe also at how the subject changes from the plural Israelites, their minds, their hearts in verses 14 and 15, to the single, “whenever anyone turns to the Lord” in verse 16. Paul not only speaks here autobiographically but also representatively, But we all, with unveiled face, in verse 18.

    Adapting a citation of Exodus 35:35, Paul interprets it in 2 Corinthians 3:17 with Holy Spirit in view, leveraging the argument from 2 Corinthians 3:1-8, and brings it all together in conclusion in 2 Corinthians 3:18—veil, Spirit, face, glory to teach what God has accomplished and will accomplish through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit—abolishing the old covenant. In 2 Corinthians 3:17 the Lord is called by Paul the Spirit. Here is Paul’s brief means of directing us to the Lord of the new covenant of the Holy Spirit of our living God who [i]gives life[/1], and freedom and unveiling (see 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6, 17-18). As a new minister of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6) Paul declares himself a representative new covenant member, being given a heart of flesh since the Spirit of God has removed the tablets of stone (2 Corinthians 3:3). Given this, Paul can speak not only as apostle (2 Corinthians 3:4-6) but also as a representative of all persons of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:12,18). Paul is no longer veiled under the old covenant in which he once lived (2 Corinthians 3:14-15; 5:16-17). Persons of the new covenant, now unveiled though Jesus Christ, are now being transformed by the Spirit of God into the image of Christ.

    Now we examine 2 Corinthians 3:17, “the Lord is the Spirit”…

    As we will see this phrase is not pneumatological (“Jesus” equals “Spirit”) as GT would like it to be, but Christological. No, the first phrase the Lord is the Spirit is not teaching that the “Lord” in the phrase is “the Spirit” in the phrase. Examination of the second phrase the Spirit of the Lord makes it clear that “the Lord” that we turn to and “the Spirit of the Lord” are distinguished from one other—two different persons. He to whom we turn is Jesus Christ, so the Spirit of the Lord is Jesus Christ’s “Spirit”, who is the Spirit of the living God referred to in 2 Corinthians 3:3. From Romans 8:9-10 we clearly see the “Spirit of Christ” is the Spirit of God.

    In 2 Corinthians 3 one emphasis is upon the work of the Holy Spirit, see 2 Corinthians 3:3,6,8,13-15. Only when the Holy Spirit works in the believer’s heart, those who are in Christ, is the veil removed, see the last part of 2 Corinthians 3:18. For Paul, it is the Holy Spirit working in those who are in Christ, and without the old covenant veil, Jesus Christ of the Scriptures is met by the believer. Paul’s view is the Lord to be the Spirit at work illuminating believers of proper understanding of God’s revelation. That is, through the Word, the Holy Spirit changes the heart of a person, leading him the freedom in Jesus Christ. In fact, using a wee bit different phraseology, Paul says the same thing elsewhere:

    1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
    2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)


    We also have the testimony of the Scriptures in our support here teaching us that Jesus Christ is the giver of the Spirit, John 4:14; 7:37–39; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Acts 2:33, and that the Spirit is given as a result of hearing the Good News, Acts 10:44; 19:2; Gal 3:1–5; Eph 1:13.

    Now we examine 2 Corinthians 3:18, “the Spirit” (in GT’s translation preference)…

    The “which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit” from GT’s translation preference or even the NASB’s “Just as from the Lord, that is, the Spirit” has only four Greek works in the underlying text:
    καθάπερ π κυρίου πνεύματος

    The word καθάπερ is important to understanding the meaning here for it means, as relates to what Paul just wrote—as one would expect—“as one would expect transformation into the image of the Lord must come from the Lord.” The word κυρίου(“Lord”) was anarthous (no Greek article) in the first part of 2 Corinthians 3:18 and it the same here, thus πνεύματος(“Spirit”) is also anarthous. Paul here is teaching that the Lord is Jesus Christ who gives the Spirit (see John 16:7 and forward). Paul is also teaching that the Lord is He who has risen whose covenant is not identified by letter, but by the Holy Spirit.

    Note that in 2 Corinthians 3:18 the opening two words of the clause containing the Spirit are just as. The Apostle here sets up a comparison, that is, “just as” to imply just as God’s glory was reflected in Moses and he was changed, we also are transformed in Christ’s image. We turn to the Lord Jesus Christ just as Moses turned to God and our glory is derived from Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, note that the word Spirit receives proper emphasis as the last word of 2 Corinthians 3:18, summarizing all of Paul’s focus on the Holy Spirit (see 2 Corinthians 3:3,6,8,17).

    No, GT, these verses do not support your claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same with no differences. Those denying the Trinity like to point to this verse (and others) in hopes of forcing the Apostle to be teaching Jesus Christ is spiritual essence by linking these verses to John 4:24, just as you have attempted, GT. As we have seen the verse speaks to the office of Christ, for He is the Spirit of the law.

    In one of the snippets quoted above, it appears GT ran few Scripture searches to find the words “God” and “soul”. Then she identifies search hits that contain words that may imply God has a soul. From this she then adds that “a soul is a body with a spirit”. I have no idea why she does so; unfortunately unsupported assertions are GT’s stock and trade. Perhaps this is the source of her claim that Jesus pre-existed in a spiritual body in heaven before the incarnation.

    A living soul is described in Genesis 2:7. From there we read that we are earthy, made from the dust of the ground and having life breathed into us by God. In the Genesis account we read that Adam's earthy body was quickened by the soul, the nephesh, the essence of life. A living being thus comprises body and soul. Note also that the use of nephesh in Genesis 2:7 is very different than the same use of the word in, say, Genesis 1:20, where the same word would imply vital motion. Unlike the soul (nephesh) of animals, man's soul possesses distinguishing intelligence and reason, and immortality. In the Old Testament we always see the term soul designating the combination as a whole, not just one of its components. The Scriptures GT claims in support of her view do not teach that God has a soul. God is not composed of parts, possesses no additional substances, essences, and so on. Other than the accommodation of God to our finitude, the most anyone could properly claim is that the “soul” of God, is God himself . When God speaks of himself in this way it is to affect us with apprehension of His concern about what He is speaking. This means of communication is directing our attention to our very cores, for we are that which our souls, i.e., our minds with all our affections, are engaged in.

    Finally, using John 17:5 GT suggests the claim that since Jesus possessed "glory" before the world began then He must have possessed a glorified body, just like the one’s the saints will have come the eschaton. But, once more, this is an example of GT’s inability to properly interpret Scripture. The context of the passage in question is the humiliation of God the Son in the incarnation, in that He was brought low from the fullness of His pre-incarnation glory. The passage has absolutely nothing to do with glorified bodies pre-existing the incarnation.

    When I offer explanatory passages from Scripture in defense of my position, GT ignores them. When I offer rebuttals to Scripture GT cites, she promptly ignores my rebuttals and just tries to find more Scriptures. In effect, GT appears to be talking to herself in this One-on-One and not really serious about her bold claim that was the genesis of this discussion:

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You do not debate me because you know you will lose.
    GT, I have no doubts that you are sincere in your beliefs, but the sad fact is that you are sincerely wrong in what you believe. Before the road to Damascus, the Apostle Paul sincerely believed he should do lots of things against the name of Jesus Christ. It was his sincerity in an erroneous set of beliefs that made him so dangerous. This discussion, and others' discussion with you elsewhere is a stellar example of what happens when a person cuts themselves off from the church militant, refusing to covenant themselves with a good local church and receive proper teaching. The numerous errors you have divulged in your posts are correctable errors if one is open to correction. Unfortunately, the heart hardens the more one remains decoupled from the local body for it is therein from which the wellsprings of grace, teaching, fellowship, worship, and rejoicing worthy discipline bountifully flow. Some will say, "Well, AMR, she means well", but as long as you refuse to seek and develop greater facility with Holy Writ all the while continuing to deny the Trinity, you are worshiping idols of your own making. Yes, when we do not worship the God of Scripture our minds turn into prolific idol factories. This is a very perilous path to walk upon.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; December 10th, 2013 at 12:54 AM. Reason: Correct "his" to read "is" in 2 Cor 3:17 discussion
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  10. #40
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    If others are following the discussion closely, they should have noted that GT shops around for some Scripture translations to support her preconceptions.
    I do sometimes choose a scripture that is worded more profoundly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Note that immediately above she quotes:
    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
    The first passage appears in the ESV, NIV, NRS, RSV, TNIV translations, while the second in only the TNIV. From this above I might conclude that GT is favoring the TNIV. An awful translation, but to each her own, I suppose.
    ALL translations say that the Lord is the Spirit, and is speaking of Jesus.
    I have never even heard of TNIV.
    Most translations do not make for false doctrines. You can use any translation you want when debating me, except for paraphrased and the JW’s.
    Are you saying I can only discuss a translation that you choose?
    I will use any translation you want except the two that I have mentioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    But, hold on now, when I examine, say this post here, I find GT using the Weymouth New Testament (for oh so obvious reasons)!
    Weymouth is a good translation that I have seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    These are two examples. GT never attributes the various translations she is using,
    That is an untruth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    and it is clear she is looking around for translations to bolster her position.
    That makes no sense. It is not a crime to use translation that is worded somewhat clearer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    This desperation is also sad and speaks to the aforementioned wooden literalism that guides GT’s views.
    What nonsense. You are wasting time speaking of your false opinions of me. You would think that you would know better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Incapable of properly interpreting Scripture, she resorts to seeking out words that might fit her own presuppositions. Sigh. GT, my preferred translation is the NKJV or the KJV, but whatever you want to use is fine with me as long as you at least note you are using various translations hoping the bare words themselves will bolster your position.
    The scriptures on this site are set for NKJV. If I do not state a specific translation that translation comes up automatically. I do not prefer that translation, but the fact that I do not always state which translation I am using shows that I do not mind any one being used.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    GT points to 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 to assert Jesus is the Holy Spirit. GT ignores the fact that in verses Paul is expounding Exodus 34:29–35 and the [i]veiledness[i] of the Jews.
    I have not ignored that. You say any falseness to defend your false beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Paul is explaining the meaning of 2 Corinthians 3:16 as relates to the blindness of the Jews and when the veil is taken away—here speaking of the law written by Moses.
    It is the law as GIVEN TO MOSES BY GOD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    When the Jews are able to Jesus Christ in the law the veil over their eyes will be lifted.
    The Jews will have the veil over their heart removed if they turn to Jesus.
    That proves it is about Jesus.
    How much clearer does it have to be?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    So let’s look closer at some exposition of the passage…

    Back in 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 Paul is discussing how veiled are the Jews (see verse 13). Next Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Paul discusses how the veil is removed from those who turn to the Lord. Observe also at how the subject changes from the plural Israelites, their minds, their hearts in verses 14 and 15, to the single, “whenever anyone turns to the Lord” in verse 16. Paul not only speaks here autobiographically but also representatively, But we all, with unveiled face, in verse 18.
    You are not saying something that no one knows. The scriptures are plain and clear. Anyone can turn to Jesus and will have the veil removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Adapting a citation of Exodus 35:35, Paul interprets it in 2 Corinthians 3:17 with Holy Spirit in view, leveraging the argument from 2 Corinthians 3:1-8, and brings it all together in conclusion in 2 Corinthians 3:18—veil, Spirit, face, glory to teach what God has accomplished and will accomplish through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit—abolishing the old covenant. In 2 Corinthians 3:17 the Lord is called by Paul the Spirit.
    The Lord is called the Spirit.
    Instead of you accepting the truth, you proceed with trying to make others believe the scripture does not say what it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Here is Paul’s brief means of directing us to the Lord of the new covenant of the Holy Spirit of our living God who [i]gives life[/1], and freedom and unveiling (see 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6, 17-18). As a new minister of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6) Paul declares himself a representative new covenant member, being given a heart of flesh since the Spirit of God has removed the tablets of stone (2 Corinthians 3:3). Given this, Paul can speak not only as apostle (2 Corinthians 3:4-6) but also as a representative of all persons of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:12,18). Paul is no longer veiled under the old covenant in which he once lived (2 Corinthians 3:14-15; 5:16-17). Persons of the new covenant, now unveiled though Jesus Christ, are now being transformed by the Spirit of God into the image of Christ.
    You are merely repeating what the scriptures say. You are not explaining anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    Now we examine 2 Corinthians 3:17, “the Lord is the Spirit”…

    As we will see this phrase is not pneumatological (“Jesus” equals “Spirit”) as GT would like it to be, but Christological. No, the first phrase the Lord is the Spirit is not teaching that the “Lord” in the phrase is “the Spirit” in the phrase. Examination of the second phrase the Spirit of the Lord makes it clear that “the Lord” that we turn to and “the Spirit of the Lord” are distinguished from one other—two different persons.
    The scriptures are speaking of the Lord, and the Spirit. That is what the scriptures are saying plainly and clearly. The scriptures plainly and clearly say twice that the Lord is the Spirit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    He to whom we turn is Jesus Christ, so the Spirit of the Lord his Jesus Christ’s “Spirit”,
    You have now twisted the scripture that plainly and clearly says the Lord is the Spirit. You have twisted it to say the Spirit of the Lord. What you did is reprehensible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    who is the Spirit of the living God referred to in 2 Corinthians 3:3. From Romans 8:9-10 we clearly see the “Spirit of Christ” is the Spirit of God.
    The Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are the same Spirit.
    There is only One Spirit.
    See Ephesians 4:4, and Ephesians 2:18.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    In 2 Corinthians 3 one emphasis is upon the work of the Holy Spirit, see 2 Corinthians 3:3,6,8,13-15. Only when the Holy Spirit works in the believer’s heart, those who are in Christ, is the veil removed, see the last part of 2 Corinthians 3:18. For Paul, it is the Holy Spirit working in those who are in Christ, and without the old covenant veil,
    The three are One and the same.
    You referenced 2 Corinthians 3:6. However, to prove to you that the three are One and the same study more carefully these scriptures:

    The Spirit gives life, 2 Corinthians 3:6

    God gives life see John 5:21.

    Jesus gives life see John 5:21.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Jesus Christ of the Scriptures is met by the believer. Paul’s view is the Lord to be the Spirit at work illuminating believers of proper understanding of God’s revelation. That is, through the Word, the Holy Spirit changes the heart of a person, leading him the freedom in Jesus Christ.
    Be careful that you do not get into Calvinism here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    In fact, using a wee bit different phraseology, Paul says the same thing elsewhere:

    1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
    2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

    We also have the testimony of the Scriptures in our support here teaching us that Jesus Christ is the giver of the Spirit, John 4:14; 7:37–39; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Acts 2:33,
    God sends the Holy Spirit

    Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." And John 14:26.


    Jesus sends the Holy Spirit.

    Luke 24:49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." And John 15:26; 16:7.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Now we examine 2 Corinthians 3:18, “the Spirit” (in GT’s translation preference)…

    The “which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit” from GT’s translation preference or even the NASB’s “Just as from the Lord, that is, the Spirit” has only four Greek works in the underlying text:
    καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος

    The word καθάπερ is important to understanding the meaning here for it means, as relates to what Paul just wrote—as one would expect—“as one would expect transformation into the image of the Lord must come from the Lord.” The word κυρίου(“Lord”) was anarthous (no Greek article) in the first part of 2 Corinthians 3:18 and it the same here, thus πνεύματος(“Spirit”) is also anarthous. Paul here is teaching that the Lord is Jesus Christ who gives the Spirit (see John 16:7 and forward). Paul is also teaching that the Lord is He who has risen whose covenant is not identified by letter, but by the Holy Spirit.
    Stop writing so much. You think that with all your talk you can justify the twisting of the scriptures. You will be held accountable to God for what you are doing.
    Again, the scriptures PLAINLY AND CLEARLY SAYS the Lord is the Spirit.
    The scriptures also say what you do not, and that is God gives the Spirit, and Jesus gives the Spirit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Note that in 2 Corinthians 3:18 the opening two words of the clause containing the Spirit are just as. The Apostle here sets up a comparison, that is, “just as” to imply just as God’s glory was reflected in Moses and he was changed, we also are transformed in Christ’s image. We turn to the Lord Jesus Christ just as Moses turned to God and our glory is derived from Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, note that the word Spirit receives proper emphasis as the last word of 2 Corinthians 3:18, summarizing all of Paul’s focus on the Holy Spirit (see 2 Corinthians 3:3,6,8,17).
    This is just more useless ramblings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    No, GT, these verses do not support your claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same with no differences. Those denying the Trinity like to point to this verse (and others) in hopes of forcing the Apostle to be teaching Jesus Christ is spiritual essence by linking these verses to John 4:24, just as you have attempted, GT. As we have seen the verse speaks to the office of Christ, for He is the Spirit of the law.
    Be quiet. You have not shown anything, except that you distort the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    In one of the snippets quoted above, it appears GT ran few Scripture searches to find the words “God” and “soul”. Then she identifies search hits that contain words that may imply God has a soul. From this she then adds that “a soul is a body with a spirit”. I have no idea why she does so; unfortunately unsupported assertions are GT’s stock and trade. Perhaps this is the source of her claim that Jesus pre-existed in a spiritual body in heaven before the incarnation.
    The body is made a live by receiving its soul; it then becomes a living body.
    Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    A living soul is described in Genesis 2:7. From there we read that we are earthy, made from the dust of the ground and having life breathed into us by God. In the Genesis account we read that Adam's earthy body was quickened by the soul, the nephesh, the essence of life. A living being thus comprises body and soul. Note also that the use of nephesh in Genesis 2:7 is very different than the same use of the word in, say, Genesis 1:20, where the same word would imply vital motion. Unlike the soul (nephesh) of animals, man's soul possesses distinguishing intelligence and reason, and immortality. In the Old Testament we always see the term soul designating the combination as a whole, not just one of its components. The Scriptures GT claims in support of her view do not teach that God has a soul. God is not composed of parts, possesses no additional substances, essences, and so on.
    The scriptures plainly and clearly say God has a soul. That soul is Jesus Christ whom existed before coming to earth.
    (Leviticus 26:11) (Leviticus 26:30) (Isaiah 42:1) (Zechariah 11:8) (Matthew 12:18) (Hebrews 10:38).
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    Finally, using John 17:5 GT suggests the claim that since Jesus possessed "glory" before the world began then He must have possessed a glorified body, just like the one’s the saints will have come the eschaton. But, once more, this is an example of GT’s inability to properly interpret Scripture. The context of the passage in question is the humiliation of God the Son in the incarnation, in that He was brought low from the fullness of His pre-incarnation glory. The passage has absolutely nothing to do with glorified bodies pre-existing the incarnation.
    Jesus plainly and clearly says with the same glory he had with God before the world began.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  11. #41
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    I do sometimes choose a scripture that is worded more profoundly.
    I have never even heard of TNIV.
    Weymouth is a good translation that I have seen.
    It is not a crime to use translation that is worded somewhat clearer.
    How are you picking verses then? At random? You clearly chose a specific TNIV verse (2 Corinthians 3:18). And how would you know WNT is a good translation? How do you determine a translation is worded somewhat clearer? Do you choose translations that line up with your position?

    You can use whatever translation you want, GT. In all your posts you have never once made reference to the translations you are quoting. Since you do not stick to one translation, it would be useful for you to at least note that you are picking and choosing various translations so we all do not have to search out the particular translations you are relying upon.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The scriptures on this site are set for NKJV.
    You can force the verse pop up at this site to render the translation you are using, GT. See bibleref tag section explained here.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You are not saying something that no one knows.
    You are missing the point with all the statements of yours about how I am telling you nothing you do not know. The point is I am hoping you will learn how proper exposition and exegesis of Scripture is to be done. When may I expect to see something similar from you in defense of your positions?
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The Lord is called the Spirit.
    Instead of you accepting the truth, you proceed with trying to make others believe the scripture does not say what it does.
    I explained the verses in detail and all you have in response is the same statement you made when originally quoting the verses I then explained to you? GT, you simply are not taking this One-on-One seriously. How do you expect the discussion to move forward when you will not advance the discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Here is Paul's brief means of directing us to the Lord of the new covenant of the Holy Spirit of our living God who [i]gives life[/1], and freedom and unveiling (see 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6, 17-18). As a new minister of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6) Paul declares himself a representative new covenant member, being given a heart of flesh since the Spirit of God has removed the tablets of stone (2 Corinthians 3:3). Given this, Paul can speak not only as apostle (2 Corinthians 3:4-6) but also as a representative of all persons of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:12,18). Paul is no longer veiled under the old covenant in which he once lived (2 Corinthians 3:14-15; 5:16-17). Persons of the new covenant, now unveiled though Jesus Christ, are now being transformed by the Spirit of God into the image of Christ.
    You are merely repeating what the scriptures say. You are not explaining anything.
    I am explaining the meaning of the two verses from 1 Corinthians, verses 17, and 18, that you found in hopes to support your position. The process is known as exposition followed by exegesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Now we examine 2 Corinthians 3:17, "the Lord is the Spirit"

    As we will see this phrase is not pneumatological ("Jesus" equals "Spirit") as GT would like it to be, but Christological. No, the first phrase the Lord is the Spirit is not teaching that the "Lord" in the phrase is "the Spirit" in the phrase. Examination of the second phrase the Spirit of the Lord makes it clear that "the Lord" that we turn to and "the Spirit of the Lord" are distinguished from one other-two different persons. He to whom we turn is Jesus Christ, so the Spirit of the Lord is Jesus Christ's "Spirit", who is the Spirit of the living God referred to in 2 Corinthians 3:3. From Romans 8:9-10 we clearly see the "Spirit of Christ" is the Spirit of God.
    The scriptures are speaking of the Lord, and the Spirit. That is what the scriptures are saying plainly and clearly. The scriptures plainly and clearly say twice that the Lord is the Spirit.

    You have now twisted the scripture that plainly and clearly says the Lord is the Spirit. You have twisted it to say the Spirit of the Lord. What you did is reprehensible.
    I have showed you what 1 Corinthians 3:17,18 are speaking about. You are offering nothing to demonstrate error in my explication of these two verses. Just saying "it is not so" is not a defense of your views.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are the same Spirit.
    There is only One Spirit.
    See Ephesians 4:4, and Ephesians 2:18.
    I have already pointed out your method of moving on to new verses when you cannot defend my answers to previous verses you use. When you are ready to explain these two verses, not just quote them, I will be happy to discuss them in detail with you, GT . I am not going to continue to carry the burden of this discussion while you simply list Scripture verses and then fold your arms as if you have actually accomplished something here. Some hints for you follow. To properly understand "one Spirit" in Ephesians 2:18, back up two verses and then see Ephesians 4:4. Now at Ephesians 4:4 see Ephesians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Romans 8:9.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The three are One and the same.
    You referenced 2 Corinthians 3:6. However, to prove to you that the three are One and the same study more carefully these scriptures:
    The Spirit gives life, 2 Corinthians 3:6
    God gives life see John 5:21.
    Jesus gives life see John 5:21.
    John 5:21 is a parallelism illustrating the self-disclosure of God the Father in God the Son. As we read in 2 Kings 5:7 the Jews understood well that God the Father could raise the dead. God the Father is fully God. The parallelism in John 5:21 drives home the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, a man who walked the streets of Palestine, is also fully God. The Holy Spirit gives life, for it is the Holy Spirit who is the agent of the resurrection of the spiritually dead to reborn life. These three persons (subsistences) are not dividing God's essence into three equal portions to make three gods. Rather, each of these persons fully partake of the one essence of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Jesus Christ of the Scriptures is met by the believer. Paul's view is the Lord to be the Spirit at work illuminating believers of proper understanding of God's revelation. That is, through the Word, the Holy Spirit changes the heart of a person, leading him the freedom in Jesus Christ.
    Be careful that you do not get into Calvinism here.
    I see. Since you obviously cannot defend your views, you resort to toadying to the crowd with "Calvinism!" in hopes to deflect attention elsewhere. This topic is not specific to Calvinism, GT. It is specific to all of Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    In fact, using a wee bit different phraseology, Paul says the same thing elsewhere:

    1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
    2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

    We also have the testimony of the Scriptures in our support here teaching us that Jesus Christ is the giver of the Spirit, John 4:14; 7:37-39; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Acts 2:33, and that the Spirit is given as a result of hearing the Good News, Acts 10:44; 19:2; Gal 3:1-5; Eph 1:13.
    God sends the Holy Spirit
    Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." And John 14:26.
    Jesus sends the Holy Spirit.
    Luke 24:49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." And John 15:26; 16:7.
    I have already discussed the procession (the filioque) of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son, GT. Your observations only support my claims that the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the filioque is distinguished from the Father and the Son!

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    The "which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" from GT's translation preference or even the NASB's "Just as from the Lord, that is, the Spirit" has only four Greek works in the underlying text:
    Stop writing so much. You think that with all your talk you can justify the twisting of the scriptures. You will be held accountable to God for what you are doing.
    Again, the scriptures PLAINLY AND CLEARLY SAYS the Lord is the Spirit.
    The scriptures also say what you do not, and that is God gives the Spirit, and Jesus gives the Spirit.

    This is just more useless ramblings.
    I have been saying throughout this discussion, GT, that you are not able to defend your views. "Stop writing so much" proves my point. Please review my examination of the passage you disagree with and point out its errors. All your shouting (all caps), hands-over-ears, eye-squinting, "stop writing so much!" won't make me go away or improve your miserable defense of your anti-Trinity heresy.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Be quiet. You have not shown anything, except that you distort the truth.
    Are you done with this discussion, GT?

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The body is made a live by receiving its soul; it then becomes a living body.
    Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
    You are merely quoting a verse I actually explained, GT. You have added nothing to the argument. Engage the arguments I am presenting in defense of the Triune Godhead or recognize that you have no real defense for your views.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    The scriptures plainly and clearly say God has a soul. That soul is Jesus Christ whom existed before coming to earth.
    (Leviticus 26:11) (Leviticus 26:30) (Isaiah 42:1) (Zechariah 11:8) (Matthew 12:18) (Hebrews 10:38)
    GT, you posted these same verses here and I have already adequately responded to them here. Jesus Christ is not God's soul. Yikes, is there no end to your odd views? You are all twisted up in overly literal readings of Scripture and it shows. You are in desperate need of proper instruction in how to study the Scriptures. I suspect that if you would humbly admit this, then you would soon shed yourself of these errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Finally, using John 17:5 GT suggests the claim that since Jesus possessed "glory" before the world began then He must have possessed a glorified body, just like the one's the saints will have come the eschaton. But, once more, this is an example of GT's inability to properly interpret Scripture. The context of the passage in question is the humiliation of God the Son in the incarnation, in that He was brought low from the fullness of His pre-incarnation glory. The passage has absolutely nothing to do with glorified bodies pre-existing the incarnation.
    Jesus plainly and clearly says with the same glory he had with God before the world began.
    GT, we all know the words being used in a verse, but we all do not know what they mean. This is the point of proper interpretation of Scripture. I have provided proper interpretation. You have not. When are you going to start carrying your portion of the burden of defending your views?
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  12. #42
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,141
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,859 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    GT,

    Your logomacy concerning my use of the word essence as in “the essence of God” has not gone unnoticed. I am hoping that as the discussion has been proceeding you are perhaps picking up on some new concepts and vocabularies that will help overcome your resistance.

    An essence is simply something with characteristics — that is, an entity about which something can be said. God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual being. We can say the same by stating, God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual essence. Essence is that by which something is what it is—its nature. The word “essence” used of God, signifies the divine nature with all its attributes, which exists but once in the Three Persons.

    Admittedly, the traditional language used in theology proper can often be confusing. Consistent use of these words and phrases is paramount, e.g., ousia and hypostasis, nature and person, essence and substance. Respectively, these words all convey much the same distinctions.

    It bears repeating that a divine person is not the same thing as a human individual. A person (or the theological term, hypostasis) is a distinct bearer of an essence. God is one in essence, and three in person. The words essence and person have special meanings when used in the context of the doctrine of God. Do not mistakenly assume that the contemporary meaning of some words we use, such as “person” has the same meaning when used in theology proper. This is the most common source of error in understanding this doctrine. The word "Person" has unfortunately became overtaken by contemporary meanings, versus what the word means within the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Furthermore, the personal subsistences of the Trinity are not three separate divine essences. Instead they are co-equal and co-sharers of the one divine essence of God. Within the Godhead there are not three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but three personal self-distinctions within the single divine essence, i.e., three distinctive subsistences.

    Who the one God is does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism.

    John Feinberg notes:
    “the three persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) coinhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. This means that the divine essence is not at one time entirely manifest as the Father (but not in or as the Son or Spirit), and then at another moment manifest exclusively as the Son, and yet again at another time solely as the Spirit. Rather, all three persons . . . exist simultaneously” (Src:No One Like Him).
    Applied to the Trinity, what this means is that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons, each with his own personal attributes, while each also shares equally the attributes of deity, a so-called homoousian identity in divine essence). There never was a time when the Father was not the Father; never a time when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit.

    Moreover, these three persons are always like-minded.
    In John 5:16-19 we find the best insight on the like-mindedness of the persons of the Trinity. After making it clear that He was equal to God the Father, Jesus expands upon the statement by noting that there is no competition between Father and Son, which the Jews had wrongfully assumed from the claims Jesus was making. Jesus teaches us that all His actions are in perfect agreement with the Father. A point made even more direct later in John 10:30. When our Lord states "He who has seen Me has seen the Father", the implication is not that Jesus is the Father, but that there is a unity even beyond intentions or purposes between Father and Son, a unity such that the Son reveals the Father (see John 1:18).

    In a previous post I have discussed the Lord’s baptismal formula within the Great Commission as one of the most explicit examples from Scripture of the Triune Godhead. If you will examine it carefully you will see that it does not say “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” This sort of rendering would suggest modalism, wherein God assumes different masks if each of these named persons depending upon various divine activities. But close examination of the text shows that a definite article appears before each of the persons of the Trinity: “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The definite article protects us from modalistic heresies by teaching the fact that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead.

    The same baptismal formula also does not read “in the names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” There is only a singular “name” of the three that distinguishes their unity. The Scriptural singular “in [b]the name[b] of the Father [b]and[b] the Son [b]and[b] the Holy Spirit” ensures we do not overlook what we are taught from the Shema in the Old Testament—Christianity does not believe we worship three Gods, for there is but one God. This has been one of your frequent misrepresentations of Trinitarianism, GT, and I am hoping from this discussion that you will consider the fact that perhaps you have not understood Trinitarian concepts.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  13. #43
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    How are you picking verses then? At random? You clearly chose a specific TNIV verse (2 Corinthians 3:18). And how would you know WNT is a good translation? How do you determine a translation is worded somewhat clearer? Do you choose translations that line up with your position?
    I choose a translation that says what I know is clearer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You can use whatever translation you want, GT. In all your posts you have never once made reference to the translations you are quoting. Since you do not stick to one translation, it would be useful for you to at least note that you are picking and choosing various translations so we all do not have to search out the particular translations you are relying upon.
    You can use whatever translation you want to use. You do not have to use the ones I use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You can force the verse pop up at this site to render the translation you are using, GT. See bibleref tag section explained here.
    I know I can. It does not have the Weymouth and Aramaic, however.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You are missing the point with all the statements of yours about how I am telling you nothing you do not know. The point is I am hoping you will learn how proper exposition and exegesis of Scripture is to be done. When may I expect to see something similar from you in defense of your positions?
    You write too much. I do not need to learn your doctrine. I already know it. What you are doing is not debating.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I explained the verses in detail and all you have in response is the same statement you made when originally quoting the verses I then explained to you? GT, you simply are not taking this One-on-One seriously. How do you expect the discussion to move forward when you will not advance the discussion?
    I am taking this debate seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I am explaining the meaning of the two verses from 1 Corinthians, verses 17, and 18, that you found in hopes to support your position. The process is known as exposition followed by exegesis.
    You twisted the scriptures.
    The scriptures do not say what you say they say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I have showed you what 1 Corinthians 3:17,18 are speaking about. You are offering nothing to demonstrate error in my explication of these two verses. Just saying "it is not so" is not a defense of your views.
    You do not say what the scriptures say, and that is easy to see.

    The scriptures say the Lord is the Spirit.

    You twisted it and said it does not say the Lord is the Spirit.

    You said it says the Spirit is the Lord's Spirit.
    Now the readers can see for themselves.


    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

    Read what the scriptures plainly and clearly say. Do not twist God’s Truth and claim it says what it does not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I have already pointed out your method of moving on to new verses when you cannot defend my answers to previous verses you use. When you are ready to explain these two verses, not just quote them, I will be happy to discuss them in detail with you, GT . I am not going to continue to carry the burden of this discussion while you simply list Scripture verses and then fold your arms as if you have actually accomplished something here. Some hints for you follow. To properly understand "one Spirit" in Ephesians 2:18, back up two verses and then see Ephesians 4:4. Now at Ephesians 4:4 see Ephesians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Romans 8:9.
    Just believe what is written. Just believe the scriptures.
    There is one Spirit.

    Did you go to a school that said do not trust the scriptures? Did your schools tell you that the scriptures do not really mean what they say?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    John 5:21 is a parallelism illustrating the self-disclosure of God the Father in God the Son. As we read in 2 Kings 5:7 the Jews understood well that God the Father could raise the dead. God the Father is fully God. The parallelism in John 5:21 drives home the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, a man who walked the streets of Palestine, is also fully God. The Holy Spirit gives life, for it is the Holy Spirit who is the agent of the resurrection of the spiritually dead to reborn life. These three persons (subsistences) are not dividing God's essence into three equal portions to make three gods. Rather, each of these persons fully partake of the one essence of God.
    There is One Spirit.
    God is Spirit.
    Jesus is Spirit.
    They are the same Holy Spirit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I see. Since you obviously cannot defend your views, you resort to toadying to the crowd with "Calvinism!" in hopes to deflect attention elsewhere. This topic is not specific to Calvinism, GT. It is specific to all of Christianity.
    You are a Calvinist. That shows you have fallen for a false doctrine, and you will not listen to reason about that, so why would you listen to any other correction about any of your other false doctrines?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I have been saying throughout this discussion, GT, that you are not able to defend your views. "Stop writing so much" proves my point. Please review my examination of the passage you disagree with and point out its errors. All your shouting (all caps), hands-over-ears, eye-squinting, "stop writing so much!" won't make me go away or improve your miserable defense of your anti-Trinity heresy.
    All caps do not always mean shouting. I thought you were an educated man.
    You do write too much. You just wasted much of my time reading through your nonsense complaining.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Are you done with this discussion, GT?
    You would like me to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    GT, you posted these same verses here and I have already adequately responded to them here. Jesus Christ is not God's soul. Yikes, is there no end to your odd views? You are all twisted up in overly literal readings of Scripture and it shows. You are in desperate need of proper instruction in how to study the Scriptures. I suspect that if you would humbly admit this, then you would soon shed yourself of these errors.
    So then, you say that Jesus is not God in the Old Testament. When does Jesus become God in your view? I thought you believed Jesus was God come in the flesh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    GT, we all know the words being used in a verse, but we all do not know what they mean. This is the point of proper interpretation of Scripture. I have provided proper interpretation. You have not. When are you going to start carrying your portion of the burden of defending your views?
    Start by quoting me and not yourself.
    Last edited by God's Truth; December 11th, 2013 at 11:47 PM.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  14. #44
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    GT,

    Your logomacy concerning my use of the word essence as in “the essence of God” has not gone unnoticed. I am hoping that as the discussion has been proceeding you are perhaps picking up on some new concepts and vocabularies that will help overcome your resistance.

    An essence is simply something with characteristics —
    Try to retain what I have already told you. Is your memory deteriorating?

    I said I know what essence means. It can mean Spirit. As I have said before, use what the written Word says, and use the word ‘Spirit’ and not ‘essence’.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    that is, an entity about which something can be said. God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual being. We can say the same by stating, God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual essence. Essence is that by which something is what it is—its nature. The word “essence” used of God, signifies the divine nature with all its attributes, which exists but once in the Three Persons.
    That is good, I have gotten you to admit that truth that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same Spirit, and since they have the same Spirit, they are the same.

    Jesus says the flesh accounts for nothing, and the words he speaks are Spirit. Jesus is Spirit.

    Jesus is the Holy Spirit. There is only One Spirit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    Admittedly, the traditional language used in theology proper can often be confusing. Consistent use of these words and phrases is paramount, e.g., ousia and hypostasis, nature and person, essence and substance. Respectively, these words all convey much the same distinctions.

    It bears repeating that a divine person is not the same thing as a human individual. A person (or the theological term, hypostasis) is a distinct bearer of an essence. God is one in essence, and three in person. The words essence and person have special meanings when used in the context of the doctrine of God. Do not mistakenly assume that the contemporary meaning of some words we use, such as “person” has the same meaning when used in theology proper. This is the most common source of error in understanding this doctrine. The word "Person" has unfortunately became overtaken by contemporary meanings, versus what the word means within the doctrine of the Trinity.
    Again, your trinity doctrine says the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus, and the Spirit of the Son are not the same Spirit; however, you now go against your trinity doctrine and admit that they are all the same Spirit. That is advancement to the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    Furthermore, the personal subsistences of the Trinity are not three separate divine essences. Instead they are co-equal and co-sharers of the one divine essence of God. Within the Godhead there are not three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but three personal self-distinctions within the single divine essence, i.e., three distinctive subsistences.
    Good for you, you just went against the trinity doctrine again. You said they are not separate. The trinity doctrine says they are separate.
    At least now you are changing the trinity doctrine that says ‘essence’ into the actual essence, which is ‘Spirit’.

    Again, you have admitted that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Jesus are all the same Spirit.

    Let the Reader know that AMR is coming along to admitting the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Applied to the Trinity, what this means is that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons, each with his own personal attributes, while each also shares equally the attributes of deity, a so-called homoousian identity in divine essence).
    Now, you go back to saying they are different. You do not even know that you constantly contradict yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    There never was a time when the Father was not the Father; never a time when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit.
    The Son is God. There is only One God, and He is the Father
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    This has been one of your frequent misrepresentations of Trinitarianism, GT, and I am hoping from this discussion that you will consider the fact that perhaps you have not understood Trinitarian concepts.
    I definitely understand the trinity doctrine, and it is FALSE. The trinitarians say thier doctrine is unexplainable. Jesus says to be ready to give an answer. You are not ready to give an answer. In fact, you will never have the answer…according to what your doctrine says.
    Last edited by God's Truth; December 12th, 2013 at 12:04 AM.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  15. #45
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    32,003
    Thanks
    1,998
    Thanked 2,211 Times in 2,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    89388
    AMR, I am going to ask you some questions, and I want you to answer the questions with either God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Do not write anything else.

    Who gives life?

    Who makes intercession for us?

    By whom do we gain access to the Father?

    Who lives inside believers, and how?

    Who pours out the Spirit and how?

    Whose commands are we given?

    Who sends the Spirit?

    Whom do we live through?

    Who circumcises our hearts?

    Who raised Jesus from the dead?
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us