Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our triune God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lon
    replied
    Right Divider Shows Jesus is God

    From RightDivider's blog:

    Rom 14:10-12 KJV
    (10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
    (11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
    (12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Php 2:6 thought it not robbery to be equal with God

    Originally posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Can someone be equal with God yet not be God?

    Jesus says people are equal to angels in their immortal state (Luke 20:36). In John 5:18 it is plainly stated that Jesus made Himself equal with God - therefore not just an exalted human (unless you believe people can attain that status in contradiction to Luke 20:36).

    Hebrews says He was made a little lower than the angels for the tasting of death. In other words He was humbled by being incarnated. So says Philippians 2:6. He was in the form of God but humbled Himself and took on the form of man. God became man.
    I truly hope some who are open, are reading God's word here that they may be corrected. Good post Nikolai

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by oatmeal View Post
    Are you still trapped in the trinity?

    Too bad so sad
    Er, trolling. Try not to abuse grace given. This thread invites substantiation and a serious mind. Soundbytes are not it.

    I can have you removed for such if that is your preference?

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION],
    Could you confirm the accuracy or correct these definitions for me?
    Innascibility - the self existence and uncreatedness of God the Father as distinct paternity of the Son?
    Yes. Having no origin. Contrasts to filiation, the generation of the Son.

    Fontal Plenitude - the source of fullness ?
    Yes.

    and I believe I saw you use the word "primity" or something similar; what is that?
    Thanks
    Primity is the quality of being first.

    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION],
    Could you please define innascibility, fontal plenitude and primity and explain how they relate to God the Father?
    The Father is Self-Conscious Self-Existence and non-originate.

    The Father is the one true and living God, who is Spirit and whose eternal and uncreated Logos is the eternal and uncreated Son. Paternity and filiation. Fontal plenitude and spiration.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION],
    Could you please define innascibility, fontal plenitude and primity and explain how they relate to God the Father?

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION],
    Could you confirm the accuracy or correct these definitions for me?
    Innascibility - the self existence and uncreatedness of God the Father as distinct paternity of the Son?
    Fontal Plenitude - the source of fullness ?
    and I believe I saw you use the word "primity" or something similar; what is that?
    Thanks
    Last edited by fishrovmen; March 18th, 2019, 01:28 AM. Reason: clarity addition

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry Shugart
    replied
    Originally posted by aikido7 View Post
    During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God or even the Son of God.
    You are mistaken because in the following verse The Lord Jesus acknowledged that He claimed to be the Son of God:
    "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (Jn.10:36).

    In fact, this is the reason that the leaders of the Jews wanted Him to die:
    "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (Jn.19:7).

    The Jews knew He was claiming to be the Son God and that is why they wanted to put Him to death and the Lord Jesus never denied that He is the Son of God. And earlier He issued this stern warning to those who denied His identity as God:
    "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn.8:23-24).

    Are you willing to bet your eternal destiny of being forever with the Lord away by continuing to deny that the Lord Jesus is God?

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    If someone hasn’t extensively studied the Cappadocian Fathers’ writings and contributions to Theology Proper while having an understanding of linguistics, it’s invalid to even attempt to speak against the Trinity doctrine. All the arguments have already been addressed and defeated.

    Leave a comment:


  • aikido7
    replied
    During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

    During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God or even the Son of God. If Jesus didn't consider himself God, so none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God.

    We do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father."

    These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...

    To me. it’s completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself.

    That would be a rather important point to make. The Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

    John, for example, asserts that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation--a full 24 hours BEFORE what the other what the other three gospels say.

    Again, John is an example of early Christian theology. His gospels depict Jesus as a mystical philosopher who talks on and on in long, dense theological discourses that are all about himself and the importance of believing in him.

    There is no Last Supper, no parables or short sayings, no concern for the poor. And the word “repent” is found nowhere in John.



    [B]Again [*sigh*] “Son of Adam", “Son of man” or “Like a man” are the same thing.

    The four gospels introduce a new definite form ["ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου”] literally "the son of the man."

    It is an awkward and ambiguous expression in Greek. Nevertheless, in all four gospels it is used only by Jesus (except once the theological Gospel of John]. The phrase functions as an emphatic equivalent of the first-person pronoun, I/me/my.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by aikido7 View Post
    “Son of man” [or “Son of Adam”] simply translates to “a human being”

    "Son of man" is the translation of one Hebrew and one Aramaic phrase used in the Hebrew Bible.
    As generally interpreted by Jews, "son of man" denotes mankind generally in contrast to deity or godhead, with special reference to their weakness and frailty.
    How is "Son of God" generally interpreted? John 10:36 KJV Matthew 16:16 KJV

    Leave a comment:


  • oatmeal
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    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.
    Are you still trapped in the trinity?

    Too bad so sad

    Leave a comment:


  • aikido7
    replied
    “Son of man” [or “Son of Adam”] simply translates to “a human being”

    "Son of man" is the translation of one Hebrew and one Aramaic phrase used in the Hebrew Bible.
    As generally interpreted by Jews, "son of man" denotes mankind generally in contrast to deity or godhead, with special reference to their weakness and frailty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    At the risk of having so many of us renting our shirts and throwing dust in the air at such blasphemy, there is no doubt where Jerry stands:

    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary.And this verse teaches practically the same thing:
    "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).

    The Lord Jesus was in heaven as Man before He came down to earth and was born of Mary.
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary.
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

    We also know that the Lord Jesus Himself said this:
    "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).

    So by the Lord's own words He was in heaven as Man before He came down to the earth and was born of Mary.
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

    The Lord Jesus as Man and as God existed in eternity. So neither nature was dependant on the other. After all, we see that the Lord Jesus does not change:
    "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).


    So by the Lord's own words He was in heaven as Man before He came down to the earth and was born of Mary.
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The Lord Jesus has always been both God and Man. So that Human was not created.
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Is that all you can say after I presented you the evidence that the Lord Jesus existed as Man before He was born of Mary?
    ...and so many more in the same thread above.

    Sadly, Jerry is hung up, erroneously, on "Son of Man" usage in Scripture:
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4358561

    Read and heed, Jerry:
    Spoiler

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


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


    The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord 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 subsistence 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 subsistences (often called 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's genus maiestaticum, 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 Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.


    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    But most won’t comprehend that you’re trying to exclude these, and will likely contend that you are excluding some aspect of the Gospel. Especially if you’re talking about the heretical MADists on TOL.
    It's not just the Dispies who resist my contention though, plenty of Clavinists do too. I believe the whole Gospel/the whole Word of God, to be clear, but what I'm saying is that, if you're going to summarize the Gospel, then most everybody includes 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV, Christ's Passion for our sins, along with His Resurrection. My reasoning is simple. Only one of these is just an impartial fact of history, His Resurrection. What His Passion and Resurrection mean, is theological in nature, and not historical, at least not impartially. Whether or not the Resurrection occurred, while believing that it did has religious implications, is a question for historians as much as for Christians. The theology surrounding this historical event is not the bailiwick of history, but of Christian religion.

    So since I don't accept that saving faith must depend upon any more theology than Romans 10:9 KJV indicates; namely, that we must think of Christ as our 'Lord,' which at minimum means, that He is not our peer in every sense, but that He is our superior; I conclude, combined with Paul's argument that the Resurrection is the faith's 'sine qua non' (1Co15:14KJV etc.), that saving faith Is believing that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead, full stop.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    I’d have to say that’s quite broad, and might need additional qualifications.
    It is exceptionally broad, yes. Here's a question: Can you honestly believe that person who believes that Christ is risen from the dead, is Not a Christian? In some way? I just cannot conceive of a person who believes that Jesus is risen from the dead, but who is not in some way, shape, or form, my sibling in Christ; no matter how otherwise wayward. otoh, people who somehow believe in Christianity but who don't think the Resurrection is nonfiction, they are not the same as me.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    To whom much is given, much is required. This means (on the opposite edge of the sword) that to whom much is NOT given, much is NOT required. Anyone in the modern western world with access to the voluminous resources available in modernity has been given much. The modern west is the most widely literate culture ever, though according to the lowest-context languages ever.
    I prefer low-context language, after having considered it, since you've raised the issue some years ago. I think it makes for clearer communication, because ambiguity is easier to avoid/prevent.

    But at the same time, I've come to realize that while English may be a lower context language, it is inherently rife with ambiguity, due to rampant homonymy. We've come to accept as normal, our dictionaries having multiple definitions for word entries. These are not 'different definitions for the same word,' but are actually different homonyms, and the context must be inspected to determine which homonym the author is using, which is something that we native English speakers do automatically, so it is something that we resist when we hear that our language is inherently very ambiguous, because in many ways, it just isn't that ambiguous at all, for us native English speakers.

    Confer 'the' word 'set.' It's claimed to be the word in English with 'the most definitions,' but I see it as the most popular homonym. Each definition of 'set' is a different 'set,' is my position.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    So I’d contend that your assertions need a measure of refining.
    I grant as much. I devote some of my work to that very thing.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    If someone can spend the time and energy to know everything about their vocation or hobby in intricate detail, then they are culpable for their theological illiteracy.
    Well, I also see the other side of the coin. Not everyone was gifted with a natural theological interest. Now you and I and most others on TOL were gifted thusly, and we work here on TOL to try to determine correct theology, through arguing and insulting and sometimes civilly debating, but always working accidentally together to further the field. We alone know that theology is the study of the highest things that concern humanity, and it is thankless. We know that it is the highest pursuit because everybody from other fields, whenever they attempt to enter the fray, are always dispatched with great ease. People learned in their fields sometimes come to realize that in order to make a lasting difference, they must address theological questions, and so they come here or other discussion boards to make a go at it, and they find that the very peaks of their own profession, only serves as the doormat of the halls of theology, where their expertise in medicine, or law, or science/cosmology only goes so far, and no farther, into the discussions.

    It's interesting to me that the Catholic Church teaches the sin of 'sloth' doesn't only apply to physical laziness, but more importantly, to a religious sloth, a lack of trying, in matters of faith and morals.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Faith is a thing given by God, as is repentance (the NOUN), and just as grace is by His inclination alone. Man cannot work up the act of believING. Faith itself believes. Without faith and repentance and grace and other nouns, man has no means of taking action. That’s the very Philological foundation for the Christian faith and all else.

    It doesn’t mean man doesn’t choose. It means man’s choice is enabled by God alone.
    So would you consider yourself 'Semi-Pelagian,' or 'Augustinian,' or something else? Is it like wanting to possess the faith that believes the Gospel, and God grants faith to those who desire to possess it, but we can't actually believe it, unless it is given to us?

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    And I think the potentially simplest and most direct way to express my concerns regarding modern conceptualizations about the Trinity is that most moderns think of God as TRIune rather than triUNE. The cardinal three-ness has become so preeminent (largely because of the English term “person”) that most are unable to see the authentic one-ness (not UPC one-ness/Jesus Only) of God (AS Spirit) and His eternal (literal, not merely titular) Logos; and thus they also embrace a Christology that is Nestorian to either a kenotic or docetic extreme.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X