'Nother Newbster

[Eeset]

And you have my word you will always receive such.

I'm sure Grosnick can vouch for that.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, I'm an Irish Mist straight up kind of gal

LOL. Love it.

and a God said it and bang, it happened, sort.

Yes, exactly. But if it's not reaching too far into the details, with a three-"person" God and scriptural references to the Son as the active means of creation, how does that jive with Trinity doctrine and Psalm 33:6 (among others)? Who is the Lord? And whose word and breath and mouth was it of the alleged three "persons"?

Word and breath are equivalent to the Son and the Holy Spirit in Trinity doctrine. How is a "person" spoken? And how is a "person" breath of a mouth? And the Lord is YHWH, which would be the Father; so how did the Son fulfill the role of being the means of creation?

(This is cordial and conversational. If it seems too strong, let me know.)

There is always forgiveness in the face of repentance. The command was/is to love each other as He first loved us.

Always. Grace and mercy.

And you have my word you will always receive such.

Gracious maturity. Very refreshing. I will reciprocate and be accountable for doing so between us.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm sure Grosnick can vouch for that.

I'll have to figure out who Grosnick is on the forum, I suppose.

 

[IMJerusha]

LOL. Love it.

Good, when all else fails, we can resort to that creature comfort.

Yes, exactly. But if it's not reaching too far into the details, with a three-"person" God and scriptural references to the Son as the active means of creation, how does that jive with Trinity doctrine and Psalm 33:6 (among others)? Who is the Lord? And whose word and breath and mouth was it of the alleged three "persons"?

Eager beaver are you?

Word and breath are equivalent to the Son and the Holy Spirit in Trinity doctrine. How is a "person" spoken? And how is a "person" breath of a mouth? And the Lord is YHWH, which would be the Father; so how did the Son fulfill the role of being the means of creation?

(This is cordial and conversational. If it seems too strong, let me know.)

Not too strong but what I think or believe about the nature of the Father, Yeshua and Ruach HaKodesh and their interrelationship would only be speculation on my part and I believe on anyone's part. I think there are things we just don't understand and aren't meant to at this point in time. From Scripture we know there is some sense of separateness in their being ie. Genesis 11:7 or John 1:1 and other verses but we're never going to pin it down.

Always. Grace and mercy.

Amen!

Gracious maturity. Very refreshing. I will reciprocate and be accountable for doing so between us.

I come by it naturally as my gray hair will attest to. So, we have an accord. I'm positively giddy! Well...that could be the Mist. :chuckle:

 

[IMJerusha]

I'm sure Grosnick can vouch for that.

I can't tell, are you being facetious?

 

[IMJerusha]

I'll have to figure out who Grosnick is on the forum, I suppose.

No doubt.

 

[Stripe]

I thought I was somewhat responding to a query in statement form.

Er.. You did. And I responded to your response. That was, what we like to call around here, a conversation.

Perhaps we'll have another one sometime. :up:

 

[Stripe]

In Trinity doctrine, who is the Lord; and whose word and breath and mouth is it of the alleged three "persons"?

Well, I don't have a thing called a "trinity doctrine", but that passage is describing the creative work of Jesus.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm new.

It happens.

I'm introducing myself.

That explains it.

(PneumaPsucheSoma = SpiritSoulBody). For short, PPS will do.

Ah, I'm an Xbox guy, but welcome aboard anyway. :e4e:

I'm a reconciliationist and non-dichotomist regarding the vast plethora of sectarian divisions of doctrine.

I'm confused. This should be fun.

Don't blame yourself. It happens a lot.

There is only one central truth on any/all doctrinal topics. Only objective truth is relevant; subjective opinion is only relevant to the extent it is in accord with objective truth. That will be reflected in my posting, especially in reference to Theology Proper. My style is "heavy" with vocab and lexical Greek in conversation. I don't despise simplicity unless it's an excuse for a lack of stewardship or scholarship. The inverse is appreciated. I DO despise inequities such as double standards. And response is NOT initiative. Please don't assign my responses as me initiating anything, as that's an inequity.

Do you believe Christ picked fishermen for their scholarship or their stewardship potential? That is to say, interesting, but I suspect we're going to differ a little, after (I hope and suspect) a good natured fashion.

I'm a non-/anti-Trinitarian, but seek discussion and reconciliation according to biblical exegesis. F/S/HS are all distinct, all eternal, all uncreated, all non-modal Deity by subsistence; but God is NOT three hypostases/one ousia (three "persons"/one "being") as a Trinity. All historical God-models can be reconciled to the one central biblical truth of God's constitution, including Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism, and the various forms of Modalism and modern Oneness.

Can you say that again in such a way that the layman is likely to grasp it or is that important to you? I don't mean the least criticism in that and the question is earnest.

And I'm none of the above, so please don't refer to me as such; even if you can't understand whatever I say or present. Take my word for it... I know what the forms of Modalism are, and I'm not one. I know what the various schools of Gnosticism teach, and I'm not any one of them.

This is the part that troubles me. The second independent clause, I mean. But I'm determined not to read the negative in, so we'll come around to understanding one another without that standing in the way.

For both of you who love me already... muah. For those who don't care for me already... touche'. Jesus Christ is God and Savior; the Logos; God manifest in the flesh.

Agreed as to the latter and as to the former...I never fail to meet a friend or willfully make an enemy, though I have both.

Welcome, again. :cheers:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Good, when all else fails, we can resort to that creature comfort.

Eager beaver are you?

I suppose it's my inherent operational mode on this topic. I seldom get any answers beyond a certain point, and the answers that are forthcoming are widely diverse. I just thought I'd get to the point.

Not too strong but what I think or believe about the nature of the Father, Yeshua and Ruach HaKodesh and their interrelationship would only be speculation on my part and I believe on anyone's part.

Well... the Trinity doctrine is pretty intricately and specifically formulated. I just have yet to see it fully reconciled with scripture. That's why I did so; but it leaves Trinity as scripturally impossible at every turn.

I think there are things we just don't understand and aren't meant to at this point in time. From Scripture we know there is some sense of separateness in their being ie. Genesis 11:7 or John 1:1 and other verses but we're never going to pin it down.

I can respect that position. It's just not the Trinity position, since Trinity is copiously and meticulously formulated. The mystery is always the precipice of one's own personal understanding. At some point mystery is disingenuous, whether it's malicious and intentional or not.

In your understanding, what is the overall general "minimum" threshhold for salvific faith? Is it Trinity doctrine? Is it the Deity of Christ? Who is lost by doctrine? Unitarians? Arians? Modalists? Others?

Amen!

I come by it naturally as my gray hair will attest to. So, we have an accord. I'm positively giddy! Well...that could be the Mist. :chuckle:

We do have an accord. I'm not really a Honda guy, but that'll work. LOL.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Er.. You did. And I responded to your response. That was, what we like to call around here, a conversation.

Perhaps we'll have another one sometime. :up:

Yeah. Perhaps. But you'll be absent from my threads, so...

Well, I don't have a thing called a "trinity doctrine",

Really? The silly evasive semantics begin awreadies. Lovely.

but that passage is describing the creative work of Jesus.

Wow. Your specificity is jaw-dropping. Okay. So in that passage, Jesus is... the Lord? The word? The breath? The mouth? All of the above? None of the above? Other, over, under, round, or another?

I always love these vague answers from the self-assured. Tell me about Cosmogony as illustrated by this verse.

In "describing the creative work of Jesus"... Was it the Word's word and breath and mouth? The Father's? Whose word? Whose breath/spirit/mouth?

Did the Word speak "Himself" to create the heavens? Can't you simply account for this verse in your doctrine?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It happens.

That explains it.

Ah, I'm an Xbox guy, but welcome aboard anyway. :e4e:

Muahahahahahaha. We'll get along fine methinks, in spite of doctrinal differences.

I'm confused. This should be fun.

Don't blame yourself. It happens a lot.

Yeah, I stand under.

Do you believe Christ picked fishermen for their scholarship or their stewardship potential?

Ultimately... yes to a great extent. Probably not what you're referring to, though.

That is to say, interesting, but I suspect we're going to differ a little, after (I hope and suspect) a good natured fashion.

Both are likely, which is better than most others.

Can you say that again in such a way that the layman is likely to grasp it or is that important to you? I don't mean the least criticism in that and the question is earnest.

Trinity doctrine is "three persons/one being" (Greek = three hypostases/one ousia). Like the other major historical God-models, it has a majority of truth but is erroneous. All those formulations, including Trinity, need to be reconciled to the absolute and objective truth of scripture. I can further elaborate or distill.

This is the part that troubles me. The second independent clause, I mean.

I was preempting the inevitable accusations that I'm a Modalist or Gnostic of some sort. In frustration, many Trinitarians have resorted to prescribing those labels as ad hominem when I have utterly refuted Trinity doctrine.

But I'm determined not to read the negative in, so we'll come around to understanding one another without that standing in the way.

That would be my initial presumption.

Agreed as to the latter and as to the former...I never fail to meet a friend or willfully make an enemy, though I have both.

Welcome, again. :cheers:

Good schtuff. Looking forward to convos wit ya.

 

[Stripe]

Yeah. Perhaps. But you'll be absent from my threads, so...Really? The silly evasive semantics begin awreadies. Lovely.Wow. Your specificity is jaw-dropping. Okay. So in that passage, Jesus is... the Lord? The word? The breath? The mouth? All of the above? None of the above? Other, over, under, round, or another?I always love these vague answers from the self-assured. Tell me about Cosmogony as illustrated by this verse.In "describing the creative work of Jesus"... Was it the Word's word and breath and mouth? The Father's? Whose word? Whose breath/spirit/mouth?Did the Word speak "Himself" to create the heavens? Can't you simply account for this verse in your doctrine?

lain:

Dang. Townie, this guy's all yours.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

lain:

Dang. Townie, this guy's all yours.

Translation... You haven't a clue how to account for Trinity doctrine relative to verses such as this and resort to vagueries and evasion. I'm accustomed to it.

One down. Or maybe you want to provide the scriptural references for the alleged three hypostases and the alleged one ousia for God. I can wait. Whoop out that Greek. Thanks.

(I really had envisioned the opportunity for genuine and somewhat synergistic conversation without conflict. I'll return your lobbed volleys, if there are any more.)

 

[Stripe]

OK, Lemme start over.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." -Psalm 33:6

would you just answer a simple straight-forward question about scripture?

Yes. Is it OK if the answer is likewise simple and straight-forward?

In Trinity doctrine, who is the Lord; and whose word and breath and mouth is it of the alleged three "persons"?

"The Lord" in your passage is Jesus. When your passage says "His mouth", that is also in reference to Jesus. Jesus' word, Jesus' breath and His mouth.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

OK, Lemme start over.

Okay dokay.

Yes. Is it OK if the answer is likewise simple and straight-forward?

Sure.

"The Lord" in your passage is Jesus. When your passage says "His mouth", that is also in reference to Jesus. Jesus' word, Jesus' breath and His mouth.

So... The Lord (YHWH) spoke... Himself (the word)? And it was Jesus' spirit/breath and mouth. Hmmm...

Did the Father not speak at creation? You realize word and breath are the Hebrew equivalent for Logos and Pneuma? Jesus spoke Himself and the Holy Spirit? The Father was silent?

How often was Jesus referred to as YHWH in the Old Testament?

 

[Stripe]

So... The Lord (YHWH) spoke... Himself (the word)? And it was Jesus' spirit/breath and mouth. Hmmm...

Er... Yes?

Did the Father not speak at creation?

He might have. :idunno:

You realize word and breath are the Hebrew equivalent for Logos and Pneuma?

That sounds right.

Jesus spoke Himself

Yip.

and the Holy Spirit?

I've no information on that.

The Father was silent?

Perhaps. :idunno:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Er... Yes?

Mmmkay.

He might have. :idunno:

So the Word is the Word's word, not God's Word or the Word of the Father? Odd. Jesus is the Word of the Word.

That sounds right.

Yip.

So... an alleged "person" spoke Himself? Was He in heaven speaking Himself into the natural universe?

I've no information on that.

Well... you said the breath (spirit, equivalent to pneuma) was the Word's breath/spirit. That would mean the Word "person" spoke Himself AND the Holy Spirit "person", which was His spirit.

Perhaps. :idunno:

But you're adamant about Trinity doctrine and the above explanations. Interesting. The above is beyond implausible.

Wanna try providing the three hypostases/one ousia scripture references for God?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This should help...

I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.

The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.

The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Sprit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.

The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Son (Word) is not the Fahter nor the Holy Spirit.

The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)

Jesus is the Son of God and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is fully human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

F/S/HS are all distinct, all uncreated, all eternal, all non-modal ontological Deity. The Father is not the Son is not the Father (are not the Holy Spirit).

But God is NOT three hypostases/one ousia as a Trinity of three "persons"/one "being".

I'm not any of the following:
Tritheist
Triadist
Trinitarian
Bitheist
Ditheist
Dyadist
Binitarian
Unitarian
Socinian
Christadelphian
Ebionitist
Adoptionist
Pneumatomachianist
Sabellian
Monarchian
Patripassian
Arianist
OR any number of over 60 other isms.

 

[Stripe]

So the Word is the Word's word, not God's Word or the Word of the Father? Odd. Jesus is the Word of the Word.

Uh, no. Jesus is referred to as "The Word of God", but that's a NT thing, isn't it?

This is OT so it's original audience would not have had any indication of how the passage indicated Jesus rather than the Father.

So... an alleged "person" spoke Himself? Was He in heaven speaking Himself into the natural universe?

I'm afraid I don't know what you're taing about.

Well... you said the breath (spirit, equivalent to pneuma) was the Word's breath/spirit. That would mean the Word "person" spoke Himself AND the Holy Spirit "person", which was His spirit.

Jesus'. We're in the OT. It's audience had no way to determine that the word might actually refer to The Word.

But you're adamant about Trinity doctrine and the above explanations. Interesting. The above is beyond implausible.

Adamant? Not really. I don't have any strong convictions on a trinity doctrine. As long as you recognise Jesus as God and Him raised from the dead and confess Him as Lord and saviour that's about the limit of my doctrine.