ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Okay, let me be blunt: I've always understood John to use Logos as Jesus

But your "always understanding" is irrelevant, just like any other.

And the Logos IS Jesus. Jesus has always been the Logos. Jesus IS still, and ever will be, the Logos. You just presume the Logos has always been a "person" in whatever manner.

and think anything else foolish and inane.

The Apostle John didn't. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John penned Logos in John 1:1, not Son.

You can try and prove otherwise but it has always been incredibly clear to me

I'm not the one with the burden of proof for an inherent misunderstanding at the hands of indoctrination. (I think you forget I was a DyoHypoTrin for 28 years and had the same exact position you hold.)

The text says Logos. The eternality of the Son was as the Logos. You just don't know what Logos and Rhema are.

and I find all other explanations to date unworthy of anybody.

Including the Apostle John, obviously (and the Holy Spirit, the actual author of scripture). By John, the Holy Spirit said Logos. You've superimposed your doctrine upon the text before even attempting any exegesis. That's eisegesis.

There is a reason, besides a chopping block, that this doctrine has been triune for centuries.

So now we have an appeal to tenure, even though you nor anyone in history has accounted for the paradox of an UNcreated eternity.

Frankly, the shoe looks very much on the opposing foot for importing and not even eisegesis.

Ummm.... I'm not the one who multiplied the singular hypostasis of God in Hebrews 1:3 and thinks the Logos in John 1:1 is automatically one of those manufactured hypostases.

It is a load of horrible Greek and English. Like third grade horrible. I know that's blunt. I just read another's 'no definite' article thread concerning John 1:1.

I've said nothing whatsoever about the anarthrous in John 1:1. The Logos was and is divine.

Honestly? It looks like you are playing obtuse to me.

It's the inverse. You can't divest yourself of preconceived bias and your own doctrine as the starting point to caricature all else to.

I'm not the one being obtuse. You should try dealing with DyoHypoTrins. You've never even seen obtuse from your perspective by comparison.

You don't need individual verses that are not inspired divisions anyway. You need the Gospel of John.

Why do you presume I'm somehow depending on verse markings? That's silly.

I indeed need and HAVE the Gospel of John. Personal pronouns are your REAL foundation for your false multiple hypostases.

Such is clearly expressed in the whole of the book. I'll worry about that portion of conversation when we come to it. We are still just talking about John chapter 1.

No. WE aren't talking about John chapter 1. I am. YOU are superimposing your doctrinal formulation UPON the text by insisting the Logos is already the Son. The Holy Spirit and the Apostle John don't say that. You presume it because you're a DyoHypoTrin. You're not talking about John chapter 1. John said the Logos was with and was God.

And you still have an UNcreated eternity that provides the existence for God instead of Him being Self-existent.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

From AMR's link:
There is little doubt that the formula “one essence, three persons” creates problems,

In the midst of all the hooplah adamantly declaring "one essence, three persons".

but any alternative formulation only multiplies the difficulties.

Not when, after nearly two millennia of omission and inconsideration, someone finally represents the scriptural truth that God created eternity and reformulates with every O/orthodox sub-tenet intact while avoiding every anathematized heresy. AND... accounting for the biblical ex-/ek- processions of the Logos and the Pneuma that have erroneously been configured as "internal" in DyoHypoTrin heterodox O/orthodoxy.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

This thread is specifically for triune believers. No other need or should post here.

I'm personally boycotting these cultists threads against our view. I have found none of them are here to learn a thing and they certainly don't make a cogent or compelling presentation. Its a waste of bandwidth and time from my experience. This thread is for posting material to help us on our way.

Here is a simple explanation I have refined over time.

In another forum a poster asked this: "I came on the forum, not as the smartest teacher of Gods word, but the dumbest…so please help me reason the belief some have in a three, in one God..."


My Response:

"You need to wrap your head around the concept that one being does not necessarily equate into one person. For example, it is true that I, as a man, am one being (a human being) and one person (Terry). But a cat is one being but NO persons. A dog is one being but NO persons.

God is one being and three persons. A being is what we are, and in God's case He is the Supreme Being, the Deity: God. But the person refers to who we are, and in God's case He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Now, God the Son became man (John 1). Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. Sometimes when he speaks he speaks in his humanity, as in some of your quotes. Other times he speaks in his Divinity, such as when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14).

Our finite minds are only able to grasp so much of God's make-up, but there are things about Him we can never grasp. And this makes total sense, for if a man were fully able to grasp the nature of Almighty God, then He would not be so almighty, would he.

 

[DaSoji1]

A cube has 6 dimensions...blue orange red black purple green.

The 6 dimensions are different...but they are still the cube.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

A cube has 6 dimensions...blue orange red black purple green.

The 6 dimensions are different...but they are still the cube.

Oh, great.:dunce:

Now God is 6 multi-racial crayola-hued persons.:dead:

:first:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Here is a simple explanation I have refined over time.

In another forum a poster asked this: "I came on the forum, not as the smartest teacher of Gods word, but the dumbest…so please help me reason the belief some have in a three, in one God..."


My Response:

"You need to wrap your head around the concept that one being does not necessarily equate into one person. For example, it is true that I, as a man, am one being (a human being) and one person (Terry). But a cat is one being but NO persons. A dog is one being but NO persons.

God is one being and three persons. A being is what we are, and in God's case He is the Supreme Being, the Deity: God. But the person refers to who we are, and in God's case He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Now, God the Son became man (John 1). Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. Sometimes when he speaks he speaks in his humanity, as in some of your quotes. Other times he speaks in his Divinity, such as when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14).

Our finite minds are only able to grasp so much of God's make-up, but there are things about Him we can never grasp. And this makes total sense, for if a man were fully able to grasp the nature of Almighty God, then He would not be so almighty, would he.

More Triadist anthropomorphic "persons" by English conceptualization instead of hypostases.

There aren't three "persons".

(Lon and AMR, are you reading?)

 

[DaSoji1]

Oh, great.:dunce:

Now God is 6 multi-racial crayola-hued persons.:dead:

:first:

So it's appeal to ridicule then. Ok.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Here is a simple explanation I have refined over time.

In another forum a poster asked this: "I came on the forum, not as the smartest teacher of Gods word, but the dumbest…so please help me reason the belief some have in a three, in one God..."


My Response:

"You need to wrap your head around the concept that one being does not necessarily equate into one person. For example, it is true that I, as a man, am one being (a human being) and one person (Terry). But a cat is one being but NO persons. A dog is one being but NO persons.

God is one being and three persons. A being is what we are, and in God's case He is the Supreme Being, the Deity: God. But the person refers to who we are, and in God's case He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Now, God the Son became man (John 1). Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. Sometimes when he speaks he speaks in his humanity, as in some of your quotes. Other times he speaks in his Divinity, such as when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14).

Our finite minds are only able to grasp so much of God's make-up, but there are things about Him we can never grasp. And this makes total sense, for if a man were fully able to grasp the nature of Almighty God, then He would not be so almighty, would he.

More Triadist anthropomorphic "persons" by English conceptualization instead of hypostases.

There aren't three "persons".

(Lon and AMR, are you reading?)

Hypostasis has to do with more than one nature in just one person, you faux-know-it-all.

The Hypostatic union refers to Jesus Christ having two natures, Divine and Human. Two nature perfectly joined into one person.

The Trinity is the opposite: Three person but One Being.

Tossing around your $50 college words is a poor substitute for the truth. What I posted was right on the money, pinhead.

BTW: "Pinhead" is only a 99¢ word, and it spoke more truth than you did.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So it's appeal to ridicule then. Ok.

No. It wasn't directed at you as a person. It was about the inane comparison posted, just like numerous others by whomever. A cube is wholly within this cosmos and has dimensional distinctions that are being compared to God. That has nothing whatsoever to do with His constitution, nor does it depict Him. And it's a comparison based on 6.

It's silly, just like all others of its ilk that first presume God is a Trinity of three "persons". But someone has to call attention to all these silly analogies; especially in the absence of actual textual exegesis, etc.

God is not a graffiti-ed miniature version of a Borg ship. Why drag Him so low just to attempt to depict an erroneous doctrine?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hypostasis has to do with more than one nature in just one person, you faux-know-it-all.

The Hypostatic union refers to Jesus Christ having two natures, Divine and Human. Two nature perfectly joined into one person.

The Trinity is the opposite: Three person but One Being.

Tossing around your $50 college words is a poor substitute for the truth. What I posted was right on the money, pinhead.

BTW: "Pinhead" is only a 99¢ word, and it spoke more truth than you did.

Oh, lookie. A Triadist called me a pinhead. I'm so wounded.

Nothing you've said or could ever say can compensate for the fact that Cappadocian O/orhodox Theology Proper is "one ousia, three hypostases".

So if you use up the singular hypostasis for the HypoUnion, then you have NO foundation for Father and Holy Spirit as hypostases.

And it's God that's being referred to as the hypostasis, not the Son.

Fail. Strike quinzillion.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Oh, lookie. A Triadist called me a pinhead......

Triadist? That word in itself reflects your ignorance.

 

[Lon]

But your "always understanding" is irrelevant, just like any other.

No, it is not. I have since gone to Seminary and have a Master's in Teaching. No dice.

And the Logos IS Jesus. Jesus has always been the Logos. Jesus IS still, and ever will be, the Logos. You just presume the Logos has always been a "person" in whatever manner.

I 'assume' scriptural instruction that says God is one, to be true. I assume that when we are told there has been nor ever will be any other God, that such means immutable, thus demands a triune belief (emphasis -une).
I assume that Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God is correct scripture. I assume that scripture has no qualm at all interchanging Father, Son, and Spirit when speaking of One God (tri-emphasis).
I assume because I am an apt theologian who understands that context, grammatical structure, and definition mean something and cannot be altered upon a whim or desire. Scripture molds us, we do not mold scripture. I assume, with my grades and degrees, I have a firm grasp on proper exegesis.

The Apostle John didn't. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John penned Logos in John 1:1, not Son.

I assume I am intelligent enough and enlightened enough to adequately and meaningfully disagree with your assumption, here.

I'm not the one with the burden of proof for an inherent misunderstanding at the hands of indoctrination. (I think you forget I was a DyoHypoTrin for 28 years and had the same exact position you hold.)

Guess again. You are all by your lonesome. As such, the ball will remain in your court as long as you live.

The text says Logos. The eternality of the Son was as the Logos. You just don't know what Logos and Rhema are.

I assume, having been adequately educated in Greek and English, that I have a fair grasp of Logos and Rhema.

Including the Apostle John, obviously (and the Holy Spirit, the actual author of scripture). By John, the Holy Spirit said Logos. You've superimposed your doctrine upon the text before even attempting any exegesis. That's eisegesis.

I assume, Matthew starts talking immediately about Jesus. I assume Mark's Gospel is about Jesus. I assume Luke writes about Jesus. I assume that the Gospel of John has the only purpose of introducing us to Jesus.
"That's Eisegesis!" Nope. That's starting with an assumption. Proper exegetical study for John's use of the term, His own definition, his other letters, and the context of this first chapter leave me with no doubt: John is talking about Jesus, period.

So now we have an appeal to tenure, even though you nor anyone in history has accounted for the paradox of an UNcreated eternity.

First, no. That is you jumping to conclusions. I said, not tenure, but a 'reason' it has tenure. Why? Because it is sound! Tenure is simply how long it has been so and a secondary point.

Ummm.... I'm not the one who multiplied the singular hypostasis of God in Hebrews 1:3 and thinks the Logos in John 1:1 is automatically one of those manufactured hypostases.

"Sat down next to...?" "...was with God and was God...?"
Add Hebrews 13:8 to your list then. It doesn't say "The Word, yesterday today and forever the same." It says Jesus is.

It's the inverse. You can't divest yourself of preconceived bias and your own doctrine as the starting point to caricature all else to.

I'm not the one being obtuse. You should try dealing with DyoHypoTrins. You've never even seen obtuse from your perspective by comparison.

No, the point was about the Holy Spirit being God. You are looking for all the verses together and I told you rather, that the book of John has no verses or chapter divisions by inspiration. Obtuse is to say 'gimme a verse.'

Why do you presume I'm somehow depending on verse markings? That's silly.

See above. You are looking for a triune equation, it is found in John. Chapter 14 does a nice job on this particular.

I indeed need and HAVE the Gospel of John. Personal pronouns are your REAL foundation for your false multiple hypostases.

John 1:14 is best understood with the personal pronoun, especially as 1) John is introducing Jesus 2) that an 'it' does not become flesh, nor 3) does 'she' work by the same token. Context, grammar, and sentence structure leave little doubt that "He" is who we are talking about.

No. WE aren't talking about John chapter 1. I am. YOU are superimposing your doctrinal formulation UPON the text by insisting the Logos is already the Son. The Holy Spirit and the Apostle John don't say that. You presume it because you're a DyoHypoTrin. You're not talking about John chapter 1. John said the Logos was with and was God.

I assume, with history, a proper education, study time, and concurrence, that I'm correct and you are not.

And you still have an UNcreated eternity that provides the existence for God instead of Him being Self-existent.

No. Eternal is a state of being from the doctrine of immutability. Hebrews 13:8 isn't just about eternality, but about an eternal state of being. I assume it is actually you that confuses terms, for one blends into the other. God being eternal, means necessarily the same through eternity, logically. I assume, as a finite being, I see He is certainly beyond your and my finite apprehension of both. I assume I have a grasp of this fact and that your imposition is a superficial one to date.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, it is not. I have since gone to Seminary and have a Master's in Teaching. No dice.

I 'assume' scriptural instruction that says God is one, to be true. I assume that when we are told there has been nor ever will be any other God, that such means immutable, thus demands a triune belief (emphasis -une).

I assume that Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God is correct scripture. I assume that scripture has no qualm at all interchanging Father, Son, and Spirit when speaking of One God (tri-emphasis).

I assume because I am an apt theologian who understands that context, grammatical structure, and definition mean something and cannot be altered upon a whim or desire. Scripture molds us, we do not mold scripture. I assume, with my grades and degrees, I have a firm grasp on proper exegesis.

I assume I am intelligent enough and enlightened enough to adequately and meaningfully disagree with your assumption, here.

Guess again. You are all by your lonesome. As such, the ball will remain in your court as long as you live.

I assume, having been adequately educated in Greek and English, that I have a fair grasp of Logos and Rhema.

I assume, Matthew starts talking immediately about Jesus. I assume Mark's Gospel is about Jesus. I assume Luke writes about Jesus. I assume that the Gospel of John has the only purpose of introducing us to Jesus.

"That's Eisegesis!" Nope. That's starting with an assumption. Proper exegetical study for John's use of the term, His own definition, his other letters, and the context of this first chapter leave me with no doubt: John is talking about Jesus, period.

First, no. That is you jumping to conclusions. I said, not tenure, but a 'reason' it has tenure. Why? Because it is sound! Tenure is simply how long it has been so and a secondary point.

"Sat down next to...?" "...was with God and was God...?"
Add Hebrews 13:8 to your list then. It doesn't say "The Word, yesterday today and forever the same." It says Jesus is.

No, the point was about the Holy Spirit being God. You are looking for all the verses together and I told you rather, that the book of John has no verses or chapter divisions by inspiration. Obtuse is to say 'gimme a verse.'

See above. You are looking for a triune equation, it is found in John. Chapter 14 does a nice job on this particular.

John 1:14 is best understood with the personal pronoun, especially as 1) John is introducing Jesus 2) that an 'it' does not become flesh, nor 3) does 'she' work by the same token. Context, grammar, and sentence structure leave little doubt that "He" is who we are talking about.

I assume, with history, a proper education, study time, and concurrence, that I'm correct and you are not.

No. Eternal is a state of being from the doctrine of immutability. Hebrews 13:8 isn't just about eternality, but about an eternal state of being. I assume it is actually you that confuses terms, for one blends into the other. God being eternal, means necessarily the same through eternity, logically. I assume, as a finite being, I see He is certainly beyond your and my finite apprehension of both. I assume I have a grasp of this fact and that your imposition is a superficial one to date.

And I'm fine with leaving you to your many assumptions.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Triadist? That word in itself reflects your ignorance.

No, it reflects the majority of professing Trinitarians' actual beliefs, likely including you. If not, the DyoHypoTrin view isn't any better anyway.

 

[jamie]

I assume, with my grades and degrees, I have a firm grasp on proper exegesis.

Wow! With those grades and degrees I suppose you have a firm grasp on the reason Adam was expelled from the garden, and it wasn't because of sin.

 

[Lon]

Wow! With those grades and degrees I suppose you have a firm grasp on the reason Adam was expelled from the garden, and it wasn't because of sin.

So making an 'assumption' is a sin of pride? Seems shaky to me.
Our example is the Apostle Paul, who though incredibly intelligent, said we have nothing we did not receive. This did not stop him from comparing. On the contrary, there are two large passages he's given of comparison and bragging rights. He does say he counts it all as not compared to knowing Christ, but he isn't shooting down his own education. He is saying that Christ is the pinacle of those studies. Don't you folks go distaining his or any other man or woman's education. There is nothing but honor in studying our God seriously.

 

[Omniskeptical]

There is nothing but honor in studying our God seriously.

But what if you are seriously wrong about the most high.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Wow! With those grades and degrees I suppose you have a firm grasp on the reason Adam was expelled from the garden, and it wasn't because of sin.

A sin, not big sin, but a sin nonetheless. The desire to see was part of the sin.

 

[DaSoji1]

No. It wasn't directed at you as a person. It was about the inane comparison posted, just like numerous others by whomever. A cube is wholly within this cosmos and has dimensional distinctions that are being compared to God. That has nothing whatsoever to do with His constitution, nor does it depict Him. And it's a comparison based on 6.

It's silly, just like all others of its ilk that first presume God is a Trinity of three "persons". But someone has to call attention to all these silly analogies; especially in the absence of actual textual exegesis, etc.

God is not a graffiti-ed miniature version of a Borg ship. Why drag Him so low just to attempt to depict an erroneous doctrine?

The analogy is a good one, but of course it can't grasp the majesty of God. It's a way of trying to wrap your brain around it.

God has revealed Himself in Scripture as one God eternally existing in three Persons.

Admittedly, my analogy was a little off. C.S. Lewis explains better than me:

You know that in space you can move in three ways – to left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube – a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways – in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings – just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal – something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already. (Harper Collins version, p161-162)


We see from Lewis’s words that this is not an unreasonable understanding of the biblical data.

As Lewis said above, ‘In God’s dimension, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube.’

We worship, follow and give our lives to the Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[jamie]

We worship, follow and give our lives to the Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And don't forget the Bride.

As for the term holy Spirit, the word holy simply means set apart. The two God beings are set apart from other spirit beings and set apart from humans.