The Trinity

[iamaberean]

How can the persons depicted in Psalm 110 and Isaiah 61 be the same person? Explain that.

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

 

[KingdomRose]

Unbelieving Christ deniers just keep repeating the same old worn out nonsense.

Yes, unfortunately, you do.

 

[KingdomRose]

:AMR: Luke 1:43. And what the heck is wrong with tradition? 2nd Thessalonians 2:15,3:6

Luke 1:43 simply says that Elizabeth asked, "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of MY LORD should come to me?" It doesn't say "the mother of God."

When tradition over-steps the Word of God, it is wrong. "He said to them in reply, 'And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?'" (Matt.15:3, NAB) "You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition. How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!" (Mark 7:8,9, NAB)

"He responded [to the Pharisees], 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me [YHWH], teaching as doctrines human precepts."'" (Mark 7:6,7, NAB)

 

[KingdomRose]

That's not what that passage means.
Do you believe this scripture?

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.​

In what way do the sins of His Church nullify her as His Church? What scripture says that? What scripture says that His Church is sinless?

Or better yet! Can you show me where the Holy See teaches that the Holy Catholic Church is or ever was sinless? If the Magisterium has ever taught it, then you've got them on hypocrisy. Have they ever taught that?

Long exhale . . . you know what I mean here?
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116738-the-church&p=4641347&viewfull=1#post4641347

You didn't address the actual deeds of the Church. I asked you pointedly if Jesus would be involved in any of that. You didn't answer that. Take each instance of horror and reply: would Jesus be guiding his true Church in this instance? (If not, then the Church wasn't representing Jesus, was it?)

 

[KingdomRose]

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

I know the scriptures. I asked for an explanation of how YHWH and the Messiah could be the same person when YHWH (Jehovah) is speaking TO the Messiah in Psalm 110, and Jehovah is anointing & sending the Messiah in Isaiah 61.

 

[KingdomRose]

According to Jesus, the following is the whole point of the Christian faith: In prayer to his Father, Jehovah, he said, "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3) Obviously, proper identification of God and the Messiah has everything to do with our attaining eternal life.

Did Peter view Jesus as God? He said, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed THROUGH him in your midst, just as you yourselves know---this man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross...and put to death (Acts 2:22,23)."

If he believed Jesus was God he missed a great chance to clearly state that. Quite obviously he did not believe that. He even brought out the point that God was doing miracles THROUGH Jesus, and not at all anything along the lines of Jesus BEING God.

How about Luke, a close friend and travelling partner of Paul? He wrote two volumes without even a hint that he believed in a second member of a Trinity. When Gabriel announced the coming arrival of the Messiah to Mary, he told her that she would bear a son, and his name was to be Jesus. "He WILL BE great...and the Lord will give him the throne of his father David." (Luke 1:31,32) Notice: the son that Mary would bear would have a FUTURE greatness, to be gained through the appointment by God, to be the prophesied successor to King David. The Good News was: Mary was to conceive and bear a son, and he would be the Son of God as well as the son of David. The SON of God...not God. How much clearer could Luke's belief about Jesus be?

I imagine that trinitarians would consider Peter, Luke and even Gabriel to be non-Christian!

 

[Nihilo]

Luke 1:43 simply says that Elizabeth asked, "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of MY LORD should come to me?" It doesn't say "the mother of God."

If our Maker is the Most Holy and Most Blessed and Undivided Trinity, as our Magisterium teaches, then Luke 1:43 certainly does say "the Mother of God."

When tradition over-steps the Word of God, it is wrong. "He said to them in reply, 'And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?'" (Matt.15:3, NAB) "You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition. How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!" (Mark 7:8,9, NAB)

"He responded [to the Pharisees], 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me [YHWH], teaching as doctrines human precepts."'" (Mark 7:6,7, NAB)

Terrific. Now we have referenced each of the five times the word "tradition" appears in the New Testament. Bravo. It's ambiguous.

 

[Nihilo]

You didn't address the actual deeds of the Church. I asked you pointedly if Jesus would be involved in any of that. You didn't answer that. Take each instance of horror and reply: would Jesus be guiding his true Church in this instance? (If not, then the Church wasn't representing Jesus, was it?)

Anybody who can read sees that I did address your post directly. You impugn the Church because of her sins, which are many and just as terrible as the moral offenses committed by those outside the faith. Neither our Lord nor the Apostles ever guaranteed that the Church would be free from moral stain, in fact many epistles deal pointedly with the opposite, that she will continue to commit even grave moral offenses.

And don't forget that this was part my reply, from the link:

The "narrow gate" people . . . I don't get them. It's like they have literally zero faith. They dream up the most unflattering, unglorifying possibility and insist that that's how we should see history, through that lens. Please. You don't think that the Father has been at work effectively? The Holy Catholic Church exists visibly in virtually every nation on the earth, and speaks virtually every language. It's far and away the most obvious direct proof that God exists and that He loves us.​

That's you. I was talking about you.

 

[iamaberean]

I know the scriptures. I asked for an explanation of how YHWH and the Messiah could be the same person when YHWH (Jehovah) is speaking TO the Messiah in Psalm 110, and Jehovah is anointing & sending the Messiah in Isaiah 61.

Maybe things are getting lost in interpretation of person. I don't look at YHWH as a person, the scripture says God is a Spirit. The Redeemer is Jesus, he has the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In other words He is God in Spirit and a man or a person in flesh.

YHWH (Spirit) is being prophetic when he is speaking in Issaih of sending Messiah (Jesus)(a man or a person), for Jesus said:
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

 

[kenjacobsen]

Er, no...those scriptures don't show that Jesus is God. How does I Corinthians show that Jesus is God? It simply says that he was the Lord from heaven. No mention that he is God.

Isaiah 44:6 refers to JEHOVAH, the Most High (see Psalm 83:18, KJV). Wherever you see "LORD" in all upper-case letters, that is where "YHWH," the Tetragrammaton (popularly translated "JEHOVAH"), appears in the original language text. Revelation 22:13 also refers to Jehovah, the Father and God of Jesus. Now, if you are going to try and say that Jesus IS Jehovah, you'll have to explain Psalm 110:1 & Isaiah 61:1,2, where Jehovah is speaking to Jesus or He is anointing Jesus and sending Jesus.

Dig deeper, man.

I would like to point out that there are no more "Jehovah"s in the Bible than there are "Trinity"s.

Note that YHWH is not a name per se, it's the renunciation of a name, since God is not a thing or a human being who can be named.

Also note that the "name above every name that can be named" is –which, Jesus or Jehovah?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Maybe things are getting lost in interpretation of person. I don't look at YHWH as a person, the scripture says God is a Spirit. The Redeemer is Jesus, he has the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In other words He is God in Spirit and a man or a person in flesh.

YHWH (Spirit) is being prophetic when he is speaking in Issaih of sending Messiah (Jesus)(a man or a person), for Jesus said:
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

This would be error. Our Lord was one person with two natures.

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The union is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

The notion that the human nature assumed by God the Son was an individuated human being that could exist outside the assumption by the divine God is an error—a very dangerous one. Rather, what was assumed by the divine was not a person, for this would mean two persons existed in the incarnation, versus the one Person, the second Person of the Trinity. The divine and human natures are united only in the person of Christ. The communicatio idiomatum is this: What can be said of the two natures can be said of the person but what can be said of the person cannot ipso facto be said of the two natures.

The word nature and the word person are not interchangeable in theology. There are two natures (human and divine) which are inseparably united in the one Person. These natures are are not to be separated, divided, mixed, or confused. Our Lord's incarnation does not affect His Divine nature in any way, for there is no interaction or exchange between the two natures. The properties of the one nature never become the properties of the other nature. They are not separated, divided, mixed, or confused so as to lose their distinctiveness or to form a third nature. That said, these natures do not function independently of the Person Jesus Christ as if they separate persons. These natures continuously and simultaneously communicate their powers and qualities to Him without conflict.

See also:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

AMR

 

[iamaberean]

This would be error. Our Lord was one person with two natures.

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The union is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

The notion that the human nature assumed by God the Son was an individuated human being that could exist outside the assumption by the divine God is an error—a very dangerous one. Rather, what was assumed by the divine was not a person, for this would mean two persons existed in the incarnation, versus the one Person, the second Person of the Trinity. The divine and human natures are united only in the person of Christ. The communicatio idiomatum is this: What can be said of the two natures can be said of the person but what can be said of the person cannot ipso facto be said of the two natures.

The word nature and the word person are not interchangeable in theology. There are two natures (human and divine) which are inseparably united in the one Person. These natures are are not to be separated, divided, mixed, or confused. Our Lord's incarnation does not affect His Divine nature in any way, for there is no interaction or exchange between the two natures. The properties of the one nature never become the properties of the other nature. They are not separated, divided, mixed, or confused so as to lose their distinctiveness or to form a third nature. That said, these natures do not function independently of the Person Jesus Christ as if they separate persons. These natures continuously and simultaneously communicate their powers and qualities to Him without conflict.

See also:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

AMR

Too much what man says, nothing about what God says. Scriptures please.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Too much what man says, nothing about what God says. Scriptures please.

I assume you actually read the linked items with Scripture therein. :AMR:

More for your careful study:
https://textbooktous.wordpress.com/...-christ-insights-from-the-chalcedonian-creed/

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-can-jesus-be-god-and-man

Given the copious Scripture in the content linked above, I do not expect to hear from you for at least a week or so as you studiously review the materials.

AMR

 

[iamaberean]

I assume you actually read the linked items with Scripture therein. :AMR:

More for your careful study:
https://textbooktous.wordpress.com/...-christ-insights-from-the-chalcedonian-creed/

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-can-jesus-be-god-and-man

Given the copious Scripture in the content linked above, I do not expect to hear from you for at least a week or so as you studiously review the materials.

AMR

If you want to debate me, you read the articles and quote the scripture that it represents and I will respond.

Luk 20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

I am searching for any scripture with 'person' and God coming together.

Nope, none there!

 

[Right Divider]

If you want to debate me, you read the articles and quote the scripture that it represents and I will respond.

Luk 20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

I am searching for any scripture with 'person' and God coming together.

Nope, none there!

Are you being dense on purpose?

 

[KingdomRose]

If our Maker is the Most Holy and Most Blessed and Undivided Trinity, as our Magisterium teaches, then Luke 1:43 certainly does say "the Mother of God."
Terrific. Now we have referenced each of the five times the word "tradition" appears in the New Testament. Bravo. It's ambiguous.

IF our Maker is the "Most Holy Trinity"! IF. Well, our Maker is NOT. And the verses in Luke do not say "Mother of God." Quote the verse that says "Mother of God." If it says that, I will stand corrected.

 

[KingdomRose]

Anybody who can read sees that I did address your post directly. You impugn the Church because of her sins, which are many and just as terrible as the moral offenses committed by those outside the faith. Neither our Lord nor the Apostles ever guaranteed that the Church would be free from moral stain, in fact many epistles deal pointedly with the opposite, that she will continue to commit even grave moral offenses.

And don't forget that this was part my reply, from the link:

The "narrow gate" people . . . I don't get them. It's like they have literally zero faith. They dream up the most unflattering, unglorifying possibility and insist that that's how we should see history, through that lens. Please. You don't think that the Father has been at work effectively? The Holy Catholic Church exists visibly in virtually every nation on the earth, and speaks virtually every language. It's far and away the most obvious direct proof that God exists and that He loves us.​

That's you. I was talking about you.

If that is your proof that God loves us, I shudder. Dear heavens. All the things I mentioned are clearly OF THE DEVIL. Yet you defend that snake's influence on your church. So be it. Keep on going with your blinders on. Jesus gave instructions to his disciples as to what to do when someone just won't accept the pearls we offer.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt.7:6, NASB) Which is what you are trying to do to me.

"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Matt.10:14, NASB) Consider the dust shaken off my feet.


:wave2:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you want to debate me, you read the articles and quote the scripture that it represents and I will respond.

Luk 20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

I am searching for any scripture with 'person' and God coming together.

Nope, none there!

I think you have not fully grasped what being a Berean means. The Bereans did not conduct daily discourse using but only Holy Writ. The listened to those having the same light in their minds, took things into consideration, and then went away and sought out the veracity of what they were discussing and hearing from the Scripture. If you are unwilling to do the same, that is within your own conscience to do so. But please do not self-righteously imply that materials saturated with Scripture and analysis by those indwelled by the same Spirit we are is something beneath you.

I wholly agree with biblicism, properly understood, but not your anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The Reformed tradition of which I am a part is historically biblicist and biblically historicist. Biblicism ens a se is a view that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is only contained therein. Historicism ens a se is the view that the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition. From the Reformed view, the polarization of these two concepts (taking either to extremes) will lead to a distortion in method if one were to gain the ascendancy over the other. Your extremist view, biblicism ens a se, leads to the attitude you are demonstrating, that no true knowledge can be found by examining those that have come before us to discover (not invent) true knowledge that is in perfect harmony with our only infallible rule of faith and life, the Scripture.

AMR

 

[KingdomRose]

Maybe things are getting lost in interpretation of person. I don't look at YHWH as a person, the scripture says God is a Spirit. The Redeemer is Jesus, he has the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In other words He is God in Spirit and a man or a person in flesh.

YHWH (Spirit) is being prophetic when he is speaking in Issaih of sending Messiah (Jesus)(a man or a person), for Jesus said:
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

God is a Spirit, yes....a spirit PERSON. Why do you think that spirit beings aren't persons? They have feelings just like you and I.

Jesus has the fullness of "godliness," yes, but not of a "Godhead." Godhead is a misleading term, and that's why many versions today do not use it. It seems to suggest a God with more than one presence. No, versions that do not use "Godhead" use, I believe, the proper words to project the correct meaning. For example (other versions of Colossians 2:9):

(1) New American Standard Bible: "For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

(2) New World Translation: "Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."

(3) New American Bible: "For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily."

(4) New International Version: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

(5) New Jerusalem Bible: "In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness."

(6) Revised Standard Version: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."

(7) J.B.Phillips/ The New Testament in Modern English: "It is in him that God gives a full and complete expression of himself in bodily form."

I think we can see in these few versions that the meaning of the word translated by the KJV committee as "Godhead" actually has a very different meaning. I think that #7--J.B.Phillips--says it the most clearly. Jesus gives mankind the idea of what his Father, God, is like. He expresses the Father's character and desires so well that he is considered to be the "fullness" of what his Father is like.

That in no way tells us that Jesus is himself God. No, he represents God in the most complete way, having observed Jehovah for eons of time. He tells us how he could represent God in such a full way:

"Truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19, NASB)

So, Jesus himself says that he has copied what the Father does, and thus he could be said to have in himself the fullness of his Father's qualities.

His Father is God. Jesus is not. Jesus expresses the Father, fully.

 

[KingdomRose]

I would like to point out that there are no more "Jehovah"s in the Bible than there are "Trinity"s.

Note that YHWH is not a name per se, it's the renunciation of a name, since God is not a thing or a human being who can be named.

Also note that the "name above every name that can be named" is –which, Jesus or Jehovah?

"Jehovah" as "YHWH," the Tetragrammaton, appears in the Bible 7,000 times. YHWH is certainly the personal name of God, as he states many times in the O.T. The KJV has included his name 4 times (which is better than none), the most familiar place being Psalm 83:18.

It's interesting that you say that God cannot be named. Jehovah begs to differ with you. The Living Bible says, at Exodus 3:15:

"Tell them, 'Jehovah, the God of your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations."

The fact that Jehovah GAVE Jesus the name above every name shows that Jehovah is superior to even Jesus. You leave out important parts of verses.

"God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name." (Philippians 2:9, NASB)

A person doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that if God GAVE Jesus that name and prominence, His own name would be understood to be the highest of all, as Psalm 83:18 states. We would naturally understand that Jesus' name is above every name with the exception of the One who gave him that name.