ECT Our triune God

[patrick jane]

Are you adjustable in your thinking? Lets see:

If, before the cross, jesus was God then why was it He was glorified after the cross? Why the "My God, My God, why have your forsaken ME"? Why the event of glorification in His life if he was already God? If He was God then why did God reward Him by giving Him a Name higher than any other in Heaven, on Earth and under the Earth? What that tells me is Jesus was given a Name higher than that even of His Father! If Jesus was God then He could not have been the second or last Adam. He could not have redeemed man. I gave you reasons. While God was the Author of creation, Jesus, the man, was the Author of our salvation. How come the distinction between the two Authors?

Last Question: Why, in your thinking, is it heresy for anyone to believe that is the way it happened? Where is the offense if you don't understand what the Bible says about Him as I have expressed it adnausm and if you still do it will be because you have, again, misconstrued my words to mean something I am NOT saying?

Now, do I believe Jesus IS GOD? With all my heart.

Jesus is also the Author of creation -

Colossians 1:16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

 

[Cross Reference]

Jesus is also the Author of creation -

Colossians 1:16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

If you want to call the preincarnate Word of God Jesus, I agree. What the verses you gave speak of is Jesus in both His preinacarnate state of being as well as His incarnete state of being. Go back and read them again and sort out how that all comes together if both are considered in Who He was and what He fulfilled to make it all work out according to the "present tense" of God's plan that needed to be proven in time for mans inclusion...

 

[Lon]

Are you adjustable in your thinking? Lets see:

If, before the cross, jesus was God then why was it He was glorified after the cross?

It may be that you aren't careful enough and mislead others to extremes against the triune view in conveyance. Try to 'show' you embrace the triune view while expressing where you differ if such is the case?
Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior was glorified with the Father. In the flesh, He is glorified after the cross, by man and God (Himself, Father, Spirit).

Why the "My God, My God, why have your forsaken ME"? Why the event of glorification in His life if he was already God?

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." John 1:1 "...was with God and was God."

If He was God then why did God reward Him by giving Him a Name higher than any other in Heaven, on Earth and under the Earth? What that tells me is Jesus was given Name higher than that even of His Father! If Jesus was God then He could not have been the second or last Adam. He could not have redeemed man. I gave you reasons.

Not exactly telling me in what sense you are triune here. It almost seems Mormonism at this point.

While God was the Author of creation, Jesus, the man, was the Author of our salvation. How come the distinction between the two Authors?

God the Father, Genesis 1:1 Spirit Genesis 1:2 and Son Colossians 1:16-20 are the Author of Creation. God the Father Ephesians 1:3-6, Spirit, Ephesians 1:13-14 and Son Ephesians 1:7-12 are the Author of Salvation.

]Last Question: Why, in your thinking, is it heresy for anyone to believe that is the way it happened? Where is the offense if you don't understand what the Bible says about Him as I have expressed it adnausm and if you still do it will be because you have, again, misconstrued my words to mean something I am NOT saying?

It may be that you aren't careful enough and mislead others to extremes against the triune view in conveyance. Try to 'show' you embrace the triune view while expressing where you differ if such is the case?

Now, do I believe Jesus IS GOD? With all my heart.

It remains to be seen if we understand this the same. Arians and Mormons mean 'god' rather than the one and ever will be only God of the universe. Isaiah tells us God is all there ever was or ever will be with no exceptions. Isaiah 43:11; 45:5-6; 46:9 & Hosea 13:4 in addition

 

[fzappa13]

Yeah, dialectic is diabolical when it's not founded on the didactic. There's no equivalence whatsoever to picking gnat dung out of pepper. There's a profound distinction between truth and untruth.



No. The langauge of divine inspiration for the New Testament was Greek. And there's a reason for that.



Yeah, and it would be from those on opposing sides of a false binary of belief, just like almost every doctrine.



You miss the significance of what I said.



This has nothing to do with dumbing down words in English for adults who are already not child-like. This is about the disposition of the heart and the quality of faith being as pure as that of a child.

I have a more child-like faith every day. It's the greatest blessing of God imaginable. And it came from lexicography in constant communion with God. The word is sacramental as the administering of grace to the heart of man. We have access BY faith INTO the grace wherein we stand.



Yeah, if anyone knew half the depth, breadth, and height of what many of those words mean, there wouldn't be any false criticism of what I say.

That last phrase is important. But we have the mind of Christ. Most don't believe that or know what it means.



Yeah, that knowledge is gnosis. Love (agape) abounds in epignosis. Huge difference. Epignosis is a synonym for faith. And here everyone has always misapplied 1Corinthians 8:1 according to 1Corinthians 13 to insist knowledge is bad. These passages point us away from gnosis TO epignosis, which love abounds in and is a synonym for faith.



Of course. If all things were carried forth and are being perpetually upheld by the word of His power, then that power should at least play havoc with such things as spell checkers.

... and what of the children?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

... and what of the children?

They're certainly not all saved. So what about those who aren't?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are simply saying that for one to be a trinitarian he has to believe a creed.

I neither said nor implied such. But you believe a creed. Everyone does. That's what a creed IS. The summation of what one believes. You've regurgitated plenty for it to be a creed.

If you're referring to the various creeds of the early Ecumenical Councils, I couldn't care less about them other than their historical value in knowing the landscape of doctrinal development, etc. I don't affirm the Athanasian myself.

Well, I have news for you.

No thanks. I've already heard the Gospel (good news), so yours pales in comparison.

When you fully understand the sinlessness of Jesus and the equality with God it afforded Him maybe,

The Son has eternal ontological equality with the Father. It wasn't the sinless flesh of His humanity that gave Him equality with God.

You're an utter schismatic heretic. This is the fruit of extreme Hegelian Kenoticism in the New Apostolic Reformation. Divinity is eternal and uncreated. Divinity cannot be acquired or bestowed or earned.

just maybe, you will get a clue as to how the "I AM" could be of Himself as being from the Godhead.

You haven't the slightest insight what ego eimi (I Am) or theotes (Godhead) mean, which is why your Christology is anti-christ and you're fighting to the death to defend it.

Eternal Life for Him was a continual intimacy with His Father.

More anti-Christ Adoptionist drivel. This is not any form of the Christian faith. Mormons are as close to truth as you.

This is beyond sad. You're a low-grade Theosophist.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I neither said nor implied such. But you believe a creed. Everyone does. That's what a creed IS. The summation of what one believes. You've regurgitated plenty for it to be a creed.

If you're referring to the various creeds of the early Ecumenical Councils, I couldn't care less about them other than their historical value in knowing the landscape of doctrinal development, etc. I don't affirm the Athanasian myself.



No thanks. I've already heard the Gospel (good news), so yours pales in comparison.



The Son has eternal ontological equality with the Father. It wasn't the sinless flesh of His humanity that gave Him equality with God.

You're an utter schismatic heretic. This is the fruit of extreme Hegelian Kenoticism in the New Apostolic Reformation. Divinity is eternal and uncreated. Divinity cannot be acquired or bestowed or earned.



You haven't the slightest insight what ego eimi (I Am) or theotes (Godhead) mean, which is why your Christology is anti-christ and you're fighting to the death to defend it.



More anti-Christ Adoptionist drivel. This is not any form of the Christian faith. Mormons are as close to truth as you.

This is beyond sad. You're a low-grade Theosophist.

and what are you?

First you come to this board telling all and sundry that they are heretics and then you change your position.

Whatever way the wind blows.

You have never met the man Jesus, to know who or what He is.

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

LA

 

[Cross Reference]

It may be that you aren't careful enough and mislead others to extremes against the triune view in conveyance. Try to 'show' you embrace the triune view while expressing where you differ if such is the case?

This is a 2way street.
I have been VERY careful to convey it. Try believing your religious persuasion doesn't permit any other perspective. Take some responsibilty for understanding.

Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior was glorified with the Father.

Preincarnate. Mt Transfiguration.

In the flesh, He is glorified after the cross, by man and God (Himself, Father, Spirit).

Yes. So with the exception of the Mt Transfiguration event when He crossed back over into glory, [that John witnessed to write of, John 1:14 KJV], it was before He was incarnate and never afterwards until His resurrection! Remember, He emptied Himself and especially during His temptation is that true that we might have see Him as our example in obedience, love and allegiance. Adam was to be our example. As a man, He failed. As a man, Jesus didn't. God could never be our example. It is an excuse for failure when Christians who sin everyday say that "Jesus was God and that is the reason He didn't sin. In fact He couldn't sin because He was God." Tell me that isn't how they think when they have been taught it from the pulpit. . . every Sunday.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." John 1:1 "...was with God and was God."

And for the umpteenth time I have asked you, When did John know that to write it as he did??? When?? Why not repeat my words back to me as to when He knew?

Not exactly telling me in what sense you are triune here. It almost seems Mormonism at this point.

That isn't my fault you get that idea from me..

God the Father, Genesis 1:1 Spirit Genesis 1:2 and Son Colossians 1:16-20 are the Author of Creation. God the Father Ephesians 1:3-6, Spirit, Ephesians 1:13-14 and Son Ephesians 1:7-12 are the Author of Salvation.

God is the Author of our creation. Though orginally the thought of God, Jesus, the man, is the Author of our salvation. He won the victory that performsd it and He did it alone. No one else at His side. He followed 'instructions' to become savior. He only did what He saw His Father doing, remember?

It may be that you aren't careful enough and mislead others to extremes against the triune view in conveyance. Try to 'show' you embrace the triune view while expressing where you differ if such is the case?

Try reading what I write better. Ask yourself why you think you are right when you conveniently leave out basic teaching from the scripture that explain what I am saying.

It remains to be seen if we understand this the same. Arians and Mormons mean 'god' rather than the one and ever will be only God of the universe. Isaiah tells us God is all there ever was or ever will be with no exceptions. Isaiah 43:11; 45:5-6; 46:9 & Hosea 13:4 in addition

And also from Isaiah we read this: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:10-12 (KJV)

Please reconcile it.

Here is another::

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:8-10 (KJV)

 

[Cross Reference]

I neither said nor implied such. But you believe a creed. Everyone does. That's what a creed IS. The summation of what one believes. You've regurgitated plenty for it to be a creed.

If you're referring to the various creeds of the early Ecumenical Councils, I couldn't care less about them other than their historical value in knowing the landscape of doctrinal development, etc. I don't affirm the Athanasian myself.



No thanks. I've already heard the Gospel (good news), so yours pales in comparison.



The Son has eternal ontological equality with the Father. It wasn't the sinless flesh of His humanity that gave Him equality with God.

You're an utter schismatic heretic. This is the fruit of extreme Hegelian Kenoticism in the New Apostolic Reformation. Divinity is eternal and uncreated. Divinity cannot be acquired or bestowed or earned.



You haven't the slightest insight what ego eimi (I Am) or theotes (Godhead) mean, which is why your Christology is anti-christ and you're fighting to the death to defend it.



More anti-Christ Adoptionist drivel. This is not any form of the Christian faith. Mormons are as close to truth as you.

This is beyond sad. You're a low-grade Theosophist.

Your psuedo intellectualism has become a forged chain for your inability to understand to metastasize.

 

[fzappa13]

They're certainly not all saved. So what about those who aren't?

I'm guessing what delineates between the two isn't their knowledge of the Koine.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

and what are you?

A Uni-/Dyo-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinitarian, who takes issue with most modern Trinitarians being functional Tritheists or some other subtle heterodox/heretical perception of the authentic historical doctrine.

First you come to this board telling all and sundry that they are heretics and then you change your position.

No. I hold the same position. I've just stepped apart from heterodox and/or heretical non-/anti-Trinitarians while still maintaining my criticisms and corrections of internal minutiae and false conceptualization of the Trinity and alleged professing Trinitarians.

Only a difference in focus. I was aligning with you and many others who are heterodox and heretical, which was a grave mistake that I admitted openly. I still have the exact same criticisms of most professing Trinitarians, but a more tempered approach that aligns with orthodoxy rather than heterodoxy.

Whatever way the wind blows.

Not in the least.

You have never met the man Jesus, to know who or what He is.

It's the inverse, else you would know the man Jesus is, has always been, and ever will be the eternal uncreated Logos of God manifested in flesh as Theanthropos, Messiah, and Savior.

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

LA

Your false presuppositional mistranslation of this verse is duly noted. You despise the eternal uncreated uninterrupted innate and intrinsic divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; demanding he be merely a man in the Incarnation.

And THIS is why I changed my focus on TOL, so as not to be affiliated with such schismatic heresy.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm guessing what delineates between the two isn't their knowledge of the Koine.

And since the passage isn't referring to the faith of children, but the kind of faith as a quality; it isn't about children being saved or unsaved (which was my point).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Your psuedo intellectualism has become a forged chain for your inability to understand to metastasize.

It's not intellectualism. It's the epignosis knowledge that love abounds in. Since you have neither love nor that type of Spirit-abounding knowledge, then you must wrongly conclude it to be intellectualism by your own autocentricity and autonomy from the influence of the cultic New Apostolic Reformation that has birthed you by the spirit of anti-christ into all these false doctrines that are not the authentic historical Christian Faith.

 

[Cross Reference]

It's not intellectualism. It's the epignosis knowledge that love abounds in. Since you have neither love nor that type of Spirit-abounding knowledge, then you must wrongly conclude it to be intellectualism by your own autocentricity and autonomy from the influence of the cultic New Apostolic Reformation that has birthed you by the spirit of anti-christ into all these false doctrines that are not the authentic historical Christian Faith.

It is man born intellectualism that can't compete in the Spiritual arena. Gnosticism, esoteric knowledge at its best.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It is man born intellectualism that can't compete in the Spiritual arena. Gnosticism, esoteric knowledge at its best.

Your NAR cult cognitive dissonance has to say these things. You don't know what Gnosticism is any more than you know what the authentic Christian faith is. Your heart and mind have been sculpted by Theosophic Christology and much else.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your NAR cult cognitive dissonance has to say these things. You don't know what Gnosticism is any more than you know what the authentic Christian faith is. Your heart and mind have been sculpted by Theosophic Christology and much else.

Stuff it in your ear.. . blow hard. That should bring you relief.

 

[Lon]

This is a 2way street.
I have been VERY careful to convey it. Try believing your religious persuasion doesn't permit any other perspective. Take some responsibilty for understanding.

Absolutely, that is what dialogue is about and why I'd entertain heterodox or heresy for more than one post.
I asked you in what sense you are triune.
You could simply label yourself Charismatic Kenotic and dialogue would have been kept to a minimum.

Preincarnate. Mt Transfiguration
Yes. So with the exception of the Mt Transfiguration event when He crossed back over into glory, [that John witnessed to write of, John 1:14 KJV], it was before He was incarnate and never afterwards until His resurrection! Remember, He emptied Himself and especially during His temptation is that true that we might have see Him as our example in obedience, love and allegiance. Adam was to be our example. As a man, He failed. As a man, Jesus didn't. God could never be our example. It is an excuse for failure when Christians who sin everyday say that "Jesus was God and that is the reason He didn't sin. In fact He couldn't sin because He was God." Tell me that isn't how they think when they have been taught it from the pulpit. . . every Sunday.

This is part of the Kenosis problem and why it is considered heresy (both of these are fairly short and quick reads).

And for the umpteenth time I have asked you, When did John know that to write it as he did??? When?? Why not repeat my words back to me as to when He knew?

When John knew isn't as important as when It was stated in the time-line. John 1:1 says in the beginning. The word is ἀρχῇ which can be translated 'in the past' or 'before a certain event (like creation).' It is where we get archaic and archeology ("very long time ago").
The conveyance is that "the Word was with God AND was God." I realize your kenosis idea has Jesus Christ 'losing' His deity at Creation, but an emptying doesn't mean 'ceased having/being." Even your exception at the transfiguration indicates He always had access to His attributes. As to man and being tempted? He was fully man. The Kenotic idea has Jesus Christ the Lord as 50% man an 50% God thus not even fully man by doctrinal portrayal. He laid aside His 'god-half' in Kenotic portrayal. The Lord Jesus Christ had to remain God, even to be fully man, else we are talking about halves. This is largely why the Kenosis theology approaches heterodoxy and heresy, specifically because it does not embrace the creed nor scripture that portrays Him 100%/100%. Remember, I too had to be corrected, I was heterodox at the time of correction, so I somewhat understand where you are coming from. A few scriptural references I was neglecting had me realizing "emptying" in Philippians 2 couldn't mean His divinity. God can't ever stop being God. It doesn't even make sense when you think about it. Simply ask: "Can God stop being God?" What necessarily must the answer be?

That isn't my fault you get that idea from me..

I gotcha now. I just didn't know who you were until this post. I think "My theology is Charismatic Kenotic" would have expedited. To be sure, is this a fair assessment of your theology?

God is the Author of our creation. Though originally the thought of God, Jesus, the man, is the Author of our salvation. He won the victory that performed it and He did it alone. No one else at His side. He followed 'instructions' to become savior. He only did what He saw His Father doing, remember?

Right. We disagree. Is it within Triune discussion? I think I want it to be here, simply because PPS is right, even among those who would be orthodox, such as your position that you are a Trinitarian, it is important to take care of these matters 'in-house' as it were, and so, though I think what we are entertaining is outside of the triune view, at least at the extreme, it yet falls within the claim to be triune. I think, however, there is only so far we can go with it in thread: Both to identify the problem and show as clearly as we can, where we depart from one another on our views (a little bit of a change of mind in that I think we should discuss it a bit further for clarity's sake and because it explains itself as Trinitarian).

Try reading what I write better. Ask yourself why you think you are right when you conveniently leave out basic teaching from the scripture that explain what I am saying.

Well, this is why I like labels, even though a lot of people don't. If someone knows at least close to what I believe, they can more easily pick out the differences from there. I 'think' I'm seeing where you are coming from at this point.

And also from Isaiah we read this: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:10-12 (KJV)
Please reconcile it.

Just a sec...

Here is another::

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:8-10 (KJV)

The triune view embraces the difference between Father and Son, rather than a difference between God and God because there is only one God. I want to go back to Philippians 2:7 to answer your question. He did this to Himself, He took on the nature, He humbled Himself.
They were all His own actions that He did to Himself. We have a LOT of equivocation in scripture between Spirit Father and Son because they are all the same being and it is usually a misunderstanding of tritheism that leads to a problematic logic and understanding. I agree with PPS on that assessment. Hope some of this helps, even if we remain in disagreement. -Lon

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Absolutely, that is what dialogue is about and why I'd entertain heterodox or heresy for more than one post.
I asked you in what sense you are triune.
You could simply label yourself Charismatic Kenotic and dialogue would have been kept to a minimum.

This is part of the Kenosis problem and why it is considered heresy (both of these are fairly short and quick reads).


When John knew isn't as important as when It was stated in the time-line. John 1:1 says in the beginning. The word is ἀρχῇ which can be translated 'in the past' or 'before a certain event (like creation).' It is where we get archaic and archeology ("very long time ago").
The conveyance is that "the Word was with God AND was God." I realize your kenosis idea has Jesus Christ 'losing' His deity at Creation, but an emptying doesn't mean 'ceased having/being." Even your exception at the transfiguration indicates He always had access to His attributes. As to man and being tempted? He was fully man. The Kenotic idea has Jesus Christ the Lord as 50% man an 50% God thus not even fully man by doctrinal portrayal. He laid aside His 'god-half' in Kenotic portrayal. The Lord Jesus Christ had to remain God, even to be fully man, else we are talking about halves. This is largely why the Kenosis theology approaches heterodoxy and heresy, specifically because it does not embrace the creed nor scripture that portrays Him 100%/100%. Remember, I too had to be corrected, I was heterodox at the time of correction, so I somewhat understand where you are coming from. A few scriptural references I was neglecting had me realizing "emptying" in Philippians 2 couldn't mean His divinity. God can't ever stop being God. It doesn't even make sense when you think about it. Simply ask: "Can God stop being God?" What necessarily must the answer be?


I gotcha now. I just didn't know who you were until this post. I think "My theology is Charismatic Kenotic" would have expedited. To be sure, is this a fair assessment of your theology?


Right. We disagree. Is it within Triune discussion? I think I want it to be here, simply because PPS is right, even among those who would be orthodox, such as your position that you are a Trinitarian, it is important to take care of these matters 'in-house' as it were, and so, though I think what we are entertaining is outside of the triune view, at least at the extreme, it yet falls within the claim to be triune. I think, however, there is only so far we can go with it in thread: Both to identify the problem and show as clearly as we can, where we depart from one another on our views (a little bit of a change of mind in that I think we should discuss it a bit further for clarity's sake and because it explains itself as Trinitarian).


Well, this is why I like labels, even though a lot of people don't. If someone knows at least close to what I believe, they can more easily pick out the differences from there. I 'think' I'm seeing where you are coming from at this point.


Just a sec...




The triune view embraces the difference between Father and Son, rather than a difference between God and God because there is only one God. I want to go back to Philippians 2:7 to answer your question. He did this to Himself, He took on the nature, He humbled Himself.
They were all His own actions that He did to Himself. We have a LOT of equivocation in scripture between Spirit Father and Son because they are all the same being and it is usually a misunderstanding of tritheism that leads to a problematic logic and understanding. I agree with PPS on that assessment. Hope some of this helps, even if we remain in disagreement. -Lon

Extreme forms of Kenoticism are, by default, also extreme forms of Nestorianism, as well. Heterodox becomes heresy and schism at this point, especially when also layered with other aspects of NAR fallacies, including Barthian Unlimited Atonement doctrine.

All primarily because English hearts and minds are sculpted by a language and culture that has no comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns and replaces them with English indefinite article nouns and verbs.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Stuff it in your ear.. . blow hard. That should bring you relief.

A typical response from a well-meaning cultist, mistaking both ancient and modern heresies as Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy in utter ignorance and the arrogance that always accompanies it.

 

[fzappa13]

And since the passage isn't referring to the faith of children, but the kind of faith as a quality; it isn't about children being saved or unsaved (which was my point).

I see your point and I see you ducking mine. What of the children?