The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

We aren't especially taught or commanded to teach details or specifics, so as long as our models stay within the bounds of what is explicitly said and avoid contradiction, then it's just a matter of making sure our models are useful and have good effect. Or in other words, let's shift to the "how does it matter" question.

I'll bring a case in point that is on my mind. Tertullian wrote against "patripassianism" - which he hated so much because it meant "the Father suffered." It was OK for him if Jesus suffered, but "the Father" was supposed to be above all that. That concept has more in common with Platonic philosophy that has an ideal of God that is "above" feeling and emotions. The net effect of Tertullian's Trinity doctrine is to preach a God that is dispassionate, that does not truly understand us, that in truth doesn't really care. As he has the "passion" limited to a simple third, the dispassionate (alien) aspect overwhelms it with majority.

So what does it really say about God? What does God say about God? John writes, "God is love" and the gospel tells us that Jesus suffered for our transgressions, walked the mile in our shoes, and knows what it is like to be rejected. This may seem "insulting" and "preposterous" for someone like Tertullian with his philosophical ideal of what a god is supposed to be like, but this is how God chose to reveal himself to us. "Logos" is supposed to mean the explanation of the thing in front of us. Jesus had passion.

Our God is a passionate God that does listen to our prayers, that is sometimes persuaded by his creation (as Moses and Abraham have shown) ... and Jesus said that if we have seen him, we have seen our Father in heaven. As such, Tertullian's model seems to work in opposition to the gospel of Christ, the revelation of our God and savior and his kingdom. Tertullian gives us a different idea of what the person (the character) of God is like than Jesus does himself.

Seems to me, this is more triune with an emphasis on '-une.' PPS talked a lot about this on TOL here
He discussed it at length for about 100 pages but I think a brief read of the linked page can give you a brief gist.

-Lon

 

[Lon]

We aren't especially taught or commanded to teach details or specifics, so as long as our models stay within the bounds of what is explicitly said and avoid contradiction, then it's just a matter of making sure our models are useful and have good effect.

Spoiler

Or in other words, let's shift to the "how does it matter" question.

I'll bring a case in point that is on my mind. Tertullian wrote against "patripassianism" - which he hated so much because it meant "the Father suffered." It was OK for him if Jesus suffered, but "the Father" was supposed to be above all that. That concept has more in common with Platonic philosophy that has an ideal of God that is "above" feeling and emotions. The net effect of Tertullian's Trinity doctrine is to preach a God that is dispassionate, that does not truly understand us, that in truth doesn't really care. As he has the "passion" limited to a simple third, the dispassionate (alien) aspect overwhelms it with majority.

So what does it really say about God? What does God say about God? John writes, "God is love" and the gospel tells us that Jesus suffered for our transgressions, walked the mile in our shoes, and knows what it is like to be rejected. This may seem "insulting" and "preposterous" for someone like Tertullian with his philosophical ideal of what a god is supposed to be like, but this is how God chose to reveal himself to us. "Logos" is supposed to mean the explanation of the thing in front of us. Jesus had passion.

Our God is a passionate God that does listen to our prayers, that is sometimes persuaded by his creation (as Moses and Abraham have shown) ... and Jesus said that if we have seen him, we have seen our Father in heaven. As such, Tertullian's model seems to work in opposition to the gospel of Christ, the revelation of our God and savior and his kingdom. Tertullian gives us a different idea of what the person (the character) of God is like than Jesus does himself.

Agree with much. Tertullian is remembered mostly because he was extensive and among the first to be so. I admire proactive discussion that seeks to head cult ideas off at the pass and at the same time, purport scriptural truth. I am equally concerned by triad theology both of Tertullian's and any sense that triadism has influenced current Trinitarian thought. I generally prefer "Triune" as it emphasizes the oneness of God, where as Trinity has a broader meaning of three united. I tend to have more patience for a modalist than the opposite polytheism side that has both a 'created god' as well as other gods.

 

[God's Truth]

And all you would have to do to show otherwise was to provide an Old Testament quotation. Which you didn't do.

You are not telling the truth. I give scripture for my beliefs.

I've only located the word "father" about four times when it occurs in the same context as God.

How many scriptures do you need before you kneel to the Truth?

One of which is Isaiah 9:6. The others use the term like an adjective, not a name or title... If you've managed to find anything applicable in the past year + feel free to bring it forward.

You are trying to diminish the word father in scripture.

And, it only takes one scripture to rebuke you with the truth.

How is it that you do not respect that one scripture at least?

 

[Rosenritter]

Did you realize that if you had a passage that would illustrate what you sought to prove, you just *had* a perfect opportunity to present it?

Isaiah 9:6 illustrates what I said before that you are objecting to. Yes, it is in the Old Testament, but it is a prophecy, pointing to a future time. The Old Testament doesn't designate anyone as "the Father" (in name or title) until the fulfillment of that prophecy.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If you have a passage that shows "the Father" being used as a name or title of God during Old Testament times, please show me instead of just saying that you want to show me. Preferably in King James.

You are not telling the truth. I give scripture for my beliefs.


How many scriptures do you need before you kneel to the Truth?



You are trying to diminish the word father in scripture.

And, it only takes one scripture to rebuke you with the truth.

How is it that you do not respect that one scripture at least?

 

[God's Truth]

Did you realize that if you had a passage that would illustrate what you sought to prove, you just *had* a perfect opportunity to present it?

Isaiah 9:6 illustrates what I said before that you are objecting to. Yes, it is in the Old Testament, but it is a prophecy, pointing to a future time. The Old Testament doesn't designate anyone as "the Father" (in name or title) until the fulfillment of that prophecy.

[FONT=&]For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[/FONT]If you have a passage that shows "the Father" being used as a name or title of God during Old Testament times, please show me instead of just saying that you want to show me. Preferably in King James.

I have given you the scriptures before and you gave this same lame excuse to write them off.

 

[God's Truth]

Scriptures that say Jesus is God the Father:

See Deuteronomy 32:18. You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

1 Corinthians 10:4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

The ROCK that FATHERED them was Christ.

Jesus says those who overcome he will be their GOD and they will be his CHILDREN.

See Revelation 21:7 KJV 2000 He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

If we are Jesus' children, then he is our Father.

John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Did you read that scripture? Who but a Father will not leave children as orphans?

Jesus says when you SEE him, you have SEEN the Father.

See John 14:7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 12:45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.

That means when we see Jesus, we can say, "I see the Father."

God says Jesus will be called God, Father, and Holy Spirit. So that is what I call Jesus.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Malachi 2:10 Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?

WHO created them? Jesus did and the scripture calls him the Father.

This scripture is where Jesus explains to them that according to the Spirit, Jesus is God the Father.

Matthew 22:43 Jesus said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord? For he says: 44‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies under Your feet.”’ 45 So if David calls Him Lord, how can He be David’s son?”

 

[Rosenritter]

Scriptures that say Jesus is God the Father:

See Deuteronomy 32:18. You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

The scriptures are full of instances where someone begat someone else, without giving them a unique identifying title of "The Father." Do you call Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "The Father?" With capital letters, as in a proper unique title?

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Why do you bother with this here? It's not like we haven't already preemptively pointed out that "Everlasting Father" (granted a definite name and title) is being applied in a future tense? That's what "he shall be called" means. It is as this is not a title being used when this was written.

Malachi 2:10 Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?

King James uses this word as descriptive noun. It's not being used as a title. Now, if it had said, "Did not God the Father create us?" or "Were we not created by the Father" that would be what we would be looking for.

Malachi 2:10 KJV
(10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

These are all being used in descriptive terms, not as names or titles. If you had something like "we pray to the Father" that would be definite. You might be able to find something in extra-biblical writings, but if your search is limited to scripture then we are left with the prophetic Isaiah 9:6 which points to the future Christ, and as the title appears in the New Testament.

Let's shift this to something productive. Why are you so concerned about this? God uses plenty of titles within the Old Testament including the Rock, Jehovah, Lord of Hosts, God Almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so on and so forth. He is still the same regardless of what names he used then or what names he will use in the future. God didn't use the name Jehovah until later, but that doesn't mean he isn't Jehovah.

Spoiler

Exodus 6:2-3 KJV(2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
(3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Doesn't God have a right to choose when he uses names and titles?

 

[God's Truth]

The scriptures are full of instances where someone begat someone else, without giving them a unique identifying title of "The Father." Do you call Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "The Father?" With capital letters, as in a proper unique title?

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.



Why do you bother with this here? It's not like we haven't already preemptively pointed out that "Everlasting Father" (granted a definite name and title) is being applied in a future tense? That's what "he shall be called" means. It is as this is not a title being used when this was written.




King James uses this word as descriptive noun. It's not being used as a title. Now, if it had said, "Did not God the Father create us?" or "Were we not created by the Father" that would be what we would be looking for.

Malachi 2:10 KJV
(10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

These are all being used in descriptive terms, not as names or titles. If you had something like "we pray to the Father" that would be definite. You might be able to find something in extra-biblical writings, but if your search is limited to scripture then we are left with the prophetic Isaiah 9:6 which points to the future Christ, and as the title appears in the New Testament.

Let's shift this to something productive. Why are you so concerned about this? God uses plenty of titles within the Old Testament including the Rock, Jehovah, Lord of Hosts, God Almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and so on and so forth. He is still the same regardless of what names he used then or what names he will use in the future. God didn't use the name Jehovah until later, but that doesn't mean he isn't Jehovah.

Spoiler

Exodus 6:2-3 KJV(2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
(3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Doesn't God have a right to choose when he uses names and titles?

I have proven my beliefs with scripture.

You have proven you don't like the scriptures and will do what you can to change them.

"Did God really say ____?"

 

[Rosenritter]

No, GT. You have proven that you are unwilling to concede a lost point regardless of what it does for your credibility. By the way, with the measure you are using, Abraham has more claim to the name and title "Father" than God.

Genesis 17:5 KJV
(5) Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Genesis 22:7 KJV
(7) And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

Joshua 24:3 KJV
(3) And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

The point was that the Old Testament does not call God with the name or title of "Father" excepting Isaiah 9:6, which prophesies that the child born of the virgin will be called "Everlasting Father" (and that, being a prophecy, is applicable for its fulfillment.) I don't know why you would prefer to flip and flop about in pretended victory rather than just admit this and go on. I've asked you why you were so focused on this, but you won't answer. What's with the anti-social act?

I have proven my beliefs with scripture.

You have proven you don't like the scriptures and will do what you can to change them.

"Did God really say ____?"

 

[God's Truth]

No, GT. You have proven that you are unwilling to concede a lost point regardless of what it does for your credibility. By the way, with the measure you are using, Abraham has more claim to the name and title "Father" than God.

I am talking about God being the Father.

How do you ever get that God is not the Father?

How do you ever get that I haven't proved that Jesus is God the Father?

How can you ever put down God being the Father?

Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Throughout the Bible we read that God is the Father Deuteronomy 32:6.

Deuteronomy 32:6 Is this the way you repay the LORD, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?

Isaiah 63:16 But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.


Are you going to admit that you have been wrong about the Bible?

The point was that the Old Testament does not call God with the name or title of "Father" excepting Isaiah 9:6, which prophesies that the child born of the virgin will be called "Everlasting Father" (and that, being a prophecy, is applicable for its fulfillment.) I don't know why you would prefer to flip and flop about in pretended victory rather than just admit this and go on. I've asked you why you were so focused on this, but you won't answer. What's with the anti-social act?

Even the Jews who rejected Jesus knew that God is called 'Father'.

John 8:41 You are doing the works of your father." "We are not illegitimate children," they answered. "Our only Father is God Himself."

I have given many scriptures that God is the Father.

God is called the Father of Israel Isaiah 64:8 ; Jeremiah 3:4 Jeremiah 3:19 ; Malachi 1:6 ; 2:10, and the Father of certain individuals 2 Samuel 7:14 , 1 Chronicles 17:13, 22:10, Psalm 89:26.


Sometimes the Father image is present, although the term 'Father' was not used.


Exodus 4:22-23 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,
and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'"

Jeremiah 31:20 Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him," declares the LORD.

Hosea 11:1-4 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

 

[Rosenritter]

How did you ever get the idea that I (or anyone on this forum) ever said that "The Father" in scripture is anyone other than God? Do you just infuse yourself with an emotional haze and start typing, rather than reading the actual words that are laid out in an attempt to communicate?

I'll spell this out one final time and hopefully that's the end of it.

1. "The Father" is how Jesus (and most of the New Testament) refers to God above in heaven.
2. "The Father" seems to be one of the more common designations for God as seen in the New Testament.
3. The only iron-clad link that I have seen in the Old Testament for the name of "The Father" is in a prophecy in Isaiah.
4. God uses many names and titles, depending on the time and people he reveals himself to.
5. Someone does not stop existing if they start using a new name.

For example, let's pretend I have a friend who is named from birth as Matthew John. His parents called him that when he was young, but when he started to enter high school, he told people to call him "Johnnie." So in this analogy, it's like you are arguing that because someone noted that "Johnnie isn't used as a name for my friend until high school" that this means that they think this means they are two different people?

(... but still, just because someone is described as a father of nations, a father of people, or such does not mean that "The Father" is being used as a title. Plenty of fathers out there. And just because you found a translation that inserts a capital letter doesn't make it used as a title.)

Look, I am glad you finally came out and said what you meant, but why did it take this long? Do you have any disagreement with any of the points 1 to 5 above? If not... then please, what point is there in argument?

I am talking about God being the Father.

How do you ever get that God is not the Father?

I doubt that anyone else on got the impression that I thought "The Father" that Jesus referred to was anyone other than God.

 

[God's Truth]

How did you ever get the idea that I (or anyone on this forum) ever said that "The Father" in scripture is anyone other than God? Do you just infuse yourself with an emotional haze and start typing, rather than reading the actual words that are laid out in an attempt to communicate?

I'll spell this out one final time and hopefully that's the end of it.

1. "The Father" is how Jesus (and most of the New Testament) refers to God above in heaven.
2. "The Father" seems to be one of the more common designations for God as seen in the New Testament.
3. The only iron-clad link that I have seen in the Old Testament for the name of "The Father" is in a prophecy in Isaiah.
4. God uses many names and titles, depending on the time and people he reveals himself to.
5. Someone does not stop existing if they start using a new name.

For example, let's pretend I have a friend who is named from birth as Matthew John. His parents called him that when he was young, but when he started to enter high school, he told people to call him "Johnnie." So in this analogy, it's like you are arguing that because someone noted that "Johnnie isn't used as a name for my friend until high school" that this means that they think this means they are two different people?

(... but still, just because someone is described as a father of nations, a father of people, or such does not mean that "The Father" is being used as a title. Plenty of fathers out there. And just because you found a translation that inserts a capital letter doesn't make it used as a title.)

Look, I am glad you finally came out and said what you meant, but why did it take this long? Do you have any disagreement with any of the points 1 to 5 above? If not... then please, what point is there in argument?




I doubt that anyone else on got the impression that I thought "The Father" that Jesus referred to was anyone other than God.

This post of yours is so dishonest. You saying I finally did something...you are laughable.

Everyone here knows that I explain my beliefs and use scripture.

Notice that you do not address the scriptures that I gave and my explanations.

All you want to do is go against me with some fake correction.

 

[God's Truth]

How did you ever get the idea that I (or anyone on this forum) ever said that "The Father" in scripture is anyone other than God?

Look at you, trying to get everyone else on this forum to think I have said something against them and now you are defending them.

Prove it right now that I have suggested such a thing?

You are the one going against God even being called 'Father'.

Many people here say that Jesus is God but not the Father.

Jesus is the one speaking in the old testament.

Since God is called the Father in the old testament, then since that is Jesus speaking---it means Jesus is God the Father.

You yourself went against me for saying God in the Old Testament is called 'Father'.

Now you are playing it like you never said that.

Do you just infuse yourself with an emotional haze and start typing, rather than reading the actual words that are laid out in an attempt to communicate?

Maybe that is what you do. Maybe you do not take the time to consider more carefully what you are saying and what I am saying.

I'll spell this out one final time and hopefully that's the end of it.

1. "The Father" is how Jesus (and most of the New Testament) refers to God above in heaven.

No kidding. We are talking about the OLD TESTAMENT. YOU are going against the truth that you said in the old testament God is not called the Father.

You said Abraham is more of a father in the old testament. You are the one who has been going against me for saying God in the old testament is called 'Father'. You are the one who spoke of titles and adjectives and went against me for saying God is the Father in the old testament.

2. "The Father" seems to be one of the more common designations for God as seen in the New Testament.

New and old alike.
We were talking about the old testament, and you are trying to make yourself sound right by trying to act like we were talking about the new testament.

3. The only iron-clad link that I have seen in the Old Testament for the name of "The Father" is in a prophecy in Isaiah.

There you go again saying things against God being called the Father in the old testament. I gave many scriptures showing God is the Father, and called the Father in the old testament. Why now do you say there is only one scripture, and that scripture you keep using is about Jesus?

4. God uses many names and titles, depending on the time and people he reveals himself to.
5. Someone does not stop existing if they start using a new name.

For example, let's pretend I have a friend who is named from birth as Matthew John. His parents called him that when he was young, but when he started to enter high school, he told people to call him "Johnnie." So in this analogy, it's like you are arguing that because someone noted that "Johnnie isn't used as a name for my friend until high school" that this means that they think this means they are two different people?

Your confusion is not my confusion. How would you ever get that I was so confused?

(... but still, just because someone is described as a father of nations, a father of people, or such does not mean that "The Father" is being used as a title. Plenty of fathers out there. And just because you found a translation that inserts a capital letter doesn't make it used as a title.)

Why do you keep going against the scripture that say GOD IS THE FATHER?

Look, I am glad you finally came out and said what you meant, but why did it take this long? Do you have any disagreement with any of the points 1 to 5 above? If not... then please, what point is there in argument?

I doubt that anyone else on got the impression that I thought "The Father" that Jesus referred to was anyone other than God.

What in the world are you talking about? Where do you get that I thought that about you? Are you deliberately saying things that I did not say or even suggest, just so you can cause confusion and act as if I am the one confused?
You will fool some people by doing that. You are a dishonest person.

 

[God's Truth]

Many people here say that Jesus is God.
Many people here say that Jesus is not the Father.
Many people here say it was Jesus speaking in the Old Testament.

I have proven with scripture that God in the Old Testament is called "the Father".
That then proves, since Jesus is God, and since it is Jesus speaking in the Old Testament, it is right to say Jesus is God the Father.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Many people here say that Jesus is God.
Many people here say that Jesus is not the Father.
Many people here say it was Jesus speaking in the Old Testament.

I have proven with scripture that God in the Old Testament is called "the Father".
That then proves, since Jesus is God, and since it is Jesus speaking in the Old Testament, it is right to say Jesus is God the Father.

Jesus is God!

Jesus is the Father
Jesus is the Son
Jesus is the Holy Spirit

Now... the Holy Spirit is God's Soul... The Son is God's Body... The Father is the PURE... undying... infinite BEING of God.

God's Body, Soul and Spirit can CLEARLY function independent of One Another. God is Awesome that way. This is how Jesus Died... but Creation went on!

How is this possible? God is Awesome and infinite.

You can't deny that the Bible teaches this!

Thus... God is TriUne! Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You can say that (Isaiah 9:6) Jesus is also the Father. But... the Son and Father are legitimately unique to one another.

You can see "The Son"... and when you do... "You've seen the Father"... but you can't see "the Father". The only one Who has seen the Father... is the very One that REVEALS the Father!

Father, Son, Holy Spirit... All Scriptural... All Deuteronomy 6:4...

To call them identical is to deny that the Body is distinct from the Spirit and so forth.

You are "in the Son"... and "The Son is in the Father"... but you ain't "In the Father".

 

[Nang]

Jesus is God!

Jesus is the Father
Jesus is the Son
Jesus is the Holy Spirit

Now... the Holy Spirit is God's Soul... The Son is God's Body... The Father is the PURE... undying... infinite BEING of God.

God's Body, Soul and Spirit can CLEARLY function independent of One Another. God is Awesome that way. This is how Jesus Died... but Creation went on!

How is this possible? God is Awesome and infinite.

You can't deny that the Bible teaches this!

This... God is TriUne! Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You can say that (Isaiah 9:6) Jesus is also the Father. But... the Son and Father are legitimately unique to one another.

You can see "The Son"... and when you do... "You've seen the Father"... but you can't see "the Father". The only one Who has seen the Father... is the very One that REVEALS the Father!

Father, Son, Holy Spirit... All Scriptural... All Deuteronomy 6:4...

To call them identical is to deny that the Body is distinct from the Spirit and so forth.

You are "in the Son"... and "The Son is in the Father"... but you ain't "In the Father".

Too many people attempt to explain the Trinity without wisdom. (Including EE.)

These would do better to not post on the subject at all, for it should be a most holy contemplation, privately done in a prayer closet, with much fear and trembling, and never casually speculated upon.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Too many people attempt to explain the Trinity without wisdom. (Including EE.)

These would do better to not post on the subject at all, for it should be a most holy contemplation, privately done in a prayer closet, with much fear and trembling, and never casually speculated upon.

Gnosis doesn't save Nang. Jesus does. Wake up and quit being bitter and argumentative because I'm one of the ones that expose your bend towards hyper Calvinism.

Yup... busted.

Back to what I said. Kindly "disprove it with scripture."

 

[Nang]

Gnosis doesn't save Nang.

No it sure doesn't.

Gnosis does not mean "wisdom" either. Gnosis is "knowledge."

Two different words and definitions.

Knowledge = Greek, "gnosis"

Wisdom = Greek, "sophia"

Yup... busted, you are.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Another Showstopper from Nang... (No Scripture)

Another Showstopper from Nang... (No Scripture)

No it sure doesn't.

Gnosis does not mean "wisdom" either. Gnosis is "knowledge."

Two different words and definitions.

Knowledge = Greek, "gnosis"

Wisdom = Greek, "sophia"

Yup... busted, you are.

And now "Wisdom Saves"... according to you? And this matches up with your assertion that we have zero part in our acceptance of Jesus... how?

And... yes... you implied it with your response. You can deny it... but... it's all there.

And... Jesus saves through our faith in Him... by His Eph. 2:8f ... that was purchased by Him at unfathomable cost!

:doh:

 

[Nang]

And now "Wisdom Saves"... according to you?

Where did I so say?

Cite, please. . .