- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi PD
Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2009,14:09) Because you cannot comprehend without my help. Nice of you to ask.
What are you putting yourself in the place of the Holy Spirit now?This really shows your arrogance to say that I cannot understand without your help.
This seems to be your attitude even with the Hebrew and Greek scholars!
Its actually very funny!
WJ
Paladin said:
Quote If you just want to know when Jesus began, that is pointed out in the writings of Mathew; “That which is in her is gennao [begotten] of the Holy SPirit.” [Mat 1:20] Prior to that, Jesus existed ONLY in prophecy. He was “gennao of the spirit” and “made of a woman” [Gal 4:4] of the seed of David according to the flesh [Rom 1:3]; of the seed of Abraham [Gal 3:16]. Paladin,
The Scripture you cite refers to Christ's physical generation. But metaphysically He was the “Man from heaven.”Quote The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second man is the lord [from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47) Jesus Himself said,
Quote No man has ascended into heaven except He which came down from heaven, which is the Son of Man (John 3:13) And again,
Quote You are from beneath; I am from above….Before Abraham was I AM (John 8:23, 58) You fail to distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical. Metaphysically Christ was from heaven and He had no beginning.
thinker
Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,00:52) Quote (TrinitarianCalvinist27 @ July 01 2009,14:40) Paladin, That is the lamest argument for anti-trinitarianism I have ever heard. You and I both know that the Spirits being referred to in Revelation were angels.
TC27
I am not speaking of “what everyone knows.”I am speaking of “consistancy.”
YOU do NOT know know that the seven spirits of God are angels, because there are more than seven angels, AND the Spirit of God is always named as one of the trinity hierarchy; so if the seven spirits of God are angels, so must be the Spirit of God. If not, why not?
I am just showing you how silly the trinity position really is.
Paladin,
The seven spirits were the seven messengers sent to the seven churches in Asia. You the great “scholar” ought to know that the Greek “pneuma” also may mean “teacher” or “teaching.” John said,Quote Believe not every spirit (or teaching) The seven spirits were the seven teachers or messengers sent to the seven churches. Just ignore the capital “S” in the word “spirit.” It is not at all a reference to the Holy Spirit. So you do not prove how silly Trinitarianism is. You prove that you are not the scholar you think you are because you missed a common fact that “pneuma” (or spirit) may also be a teacher or a teaching.
Quote Beloved, be not tossed to and fro by every spirit of doctrine The Greek is “pneuma” and it means that we should not be tossed to and fro by every teaching that comes along including Paladinianism.
thinker
Worshippingjesus said:
Quote What are you putting yourself in the place of the Holy Spirit now? This really shows your arrogance to say that I cannot understand without your help.
This seems to be your attitude even with the Hebrew and Greek scholars!
Its actually very funny!
WJ,
I will tell you what else is funny. Paladin didn't even know that the word “pneuma” in scripture often means “teaching” or “teacher.” Yet he passes himself off as this great “scholar” of the biblical languages.thinker
Paladin wrote:
swteeros eemwn Ieesou Cristou
OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.Nope!
The correct order is:
SAVIOR OF US JESUS CHRIST
thinker
Copied from the “Concordant Publishing Concern”.
ONE GOD AND ONE LORD
THE SCRIPTURAL EXPRESSIONS FOR “GOD” signify neither supremacy nor unoriginatedness of being. And, these terms may be used either in a relative sense or in an absolute sense–even when used in a literal sense and in a faithful sense. “God” is a title which speaks of Subjectorhood or Placership.
Ultimately speaking, “there is no other God except One” (1 Cor.8:4). “The Head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). The God and Father of the believer is also “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph.1:17). We believe, then, that the Supreme God is the One Whom the apostle Paul terms “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph.1:3), Whom Christ Himself terms “the only true God” (John 17:3).
While we believe “even if so be that there are many being termed ‘GODS,’ whether in heaven or on earth, even as [there is a sense in which] there are many gods, and many lords, nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is” (1 Cor.8:5,6).
It is revealed that, in Christ, “the entire complement of the Deity is dwelling bodily” (Col.2:9). If the entire complement of the Deity, however, dwells in Christ, this does not make Christ God, any more than if the entire complement of a salesman’s samples are contained in a box, the box is the salesman’s samples. Even as the box remains the entity containing the samples, not the samples themselves, thus also, Christ remains the One in Whom the entire complement of the Deity is dwelling bodily, not the Deity Himself. A complement is “that which [or the one who] fills.” Thus Christ, as the One in Whom the entire complement pertaining to the Deity is dwelling bodily, becomes the Image of the invisible God (Col.1:15), the Agency through which God’s purpose to make Himself known is realized and fulfilled.
It is revealed as well that Christ, before taking the form of a slave and coming to be in the likeness of humanity, “being inherently [lit., “inhering”] in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God” (Phil.2:6). This fact, however, again, is no proof that He is God but is rather a disproof of any such proposition. One who is equal with another is not the other but himself. Equality between two, regardless of their nature and regardless of the particulars of that equality, is not a proof of identity but of its denial. Equality always denies identity, and must ever be relative, else it becomes identity. Then, it is no longer equality. If Christ our Lord, in some respect, is equal with God, this proves that Christ is not God and that God is not Christ.
“The Word” of God in John 1:1 may well have in view not only God’s personified Word, Christ, but His written word as well. In any case, “THE WORD was toward God.” Any sense, then, in which it is correct to say that “the Word was God,” must be compatible with the Word’s being, first of all “toward God.” This fact precludes the Word’s being literally and identificationally God, and entails Its being God only figuratively, in a representative sense. Hence it is simply incorrect to reason that if in John 1:1 Christ is the Word, it follows that He is therein affirmed to be God, in either a literal or absolute sense.
Since we wish to consider the nature of God’s being according to the claims both of Trinitarianism and Modalism, a word needs to be said concerning the English word “being” itself. One who has “being,” merely speaks of one who exists or is (cp Heb.11:6). Similarly, an “entity” is that which has existence. And, the modern term “person” simply means a being characterized by conscious apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense, whether or not a corporeal being or a human being. Anything that has being, is anything that has existence. But when we speak of a being, we mean a “person,” the expression “person” being understood in accord with the definition stated above. In this sense, then, God is a “Person.” “Personal” qualities are those characteristics which pertain to a person; specifically, conscious apprehension, rationality, and moral sense.
Trinitarians, however, do not use the word “person” in the sense presented above. This has resulted in much confusion.
The teaching of Trinitarianism is that “God is one Being, existing eternally in three hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” 1 More succinctly stated, God exists in three hypostases.
“Hypostasis” is the formal, theological equivalent for the popular term “person.” In Trinitarian theology, that which is to be understood by the latter expression, is that which is defined by the former. The Trinitarian definition of “person” is, “one of the three modes of being in the Godhead; a hypostasis.” 2 The word “hypostasis,” itself, simply means that without which something cannot be, the “essential nature of anything; a subject in which attributes are conceived to inhere, or a . . . mode of existence.” 3 A hypostasis, then, is an “essentiality.”
It needs to be emphasized that the orthodox Trinitarian does not affirm that God is both one and three in the same sense. He rather affirms that within the one God there are three distinct “Persons,” each one of Whom is uncreated and of the same essence or nature (any distinctions between the three being ones of service or office). By “person,” however, the knowledgeable Trinitarian does not mean a literal person, in the sense of an actual, living being; instead, he uses the word “person” strictly in an accommodated sense as a token for the technical “hypostasis” (i.e., essentiality).
Consequently, then, more clearly stated, God is one Being, existing eternally in three essentialities: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Briefly, according to Trinitarianism, God exists in three essentialities.
The Trinitarian, if he would maintain a viable monotheism and yet avoid adopting opposing views, has no recourse but to affirm that these three essentialities are modes of the same Being, three modes in which God always and actually exists (not to be confounded with Modalism, the opposing doctrine which affirms a plurality of divine modes merely in the sense of divine roles in which God Himself is sometimes presented).
To be consistent, orthodox Trinitarianism must affirm and does affirm, 4 that by the “Trinity” they mean that God has His existence in three distinct modes, each of which being marked by a certain, “personal” quality. These modes are denominated, respectively, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It is confusing, however, for Trinitarians to claim that these three hypostatic (i.e., essential) modes are “distinct but not separate.” This is because “distinct” and “separate” are synonyms. It is only a question of idiom whether we use one term or the other. What the Trinitarian actually means to say, however, by the slogan “distinct but not separate,” is that while there are distinctions which separate what is to be understood concerning each hypostasis, one from another, nonetheless these distinctions do not constitute any of the three hypostases separate beings.
Even so, if the three hypostases termed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are in fact three modes or ways in which God subsists (i.e., continues to exist), then it follows that each itself, literally speaking, is not God Himself. Each of these three cannot literally be God, but rather a mode of God’s existence, a way in which God subsists. It would only be, wherever any of these are termed God, or spoken of as God, that we are to understand, by figure of association, God Himself.
Trinitarians, indeed, as a shibboleth, insist on declaring, “Jesus is God.” Yet however important this affirmation is conceived to be as a righteous slogan, such is not actually an accurate statement of Trinitarianism itself.
An outsider might
reasonably suppose that by the affirmation “Jesus is God,” the Trinitarian means to say that Christ is the Deity, the one true God. The Trinitarian’s actual claim, however, is that the Son, Christ Jesus, even as the Father and the Holy Spirit, is a hypostasis or essential mode in which God subsists. That is, Christ Himself is not a Being or Person, but is instead an aspect of a Being or Person.
One who believes such a proposition cannot, apart from self-contradiction, also believe that Jesus, in a literal, identificational sense, is God.
Yet they do wish for Christ to have “full Godness,” including, by all means, uncreatedness, together with no immanent subordinancy to the Father, only “economic” subordinancy. They also wish for both the “Father” and the “Holy Spirit” to have full Godness, including uncreatedness, whatever Their respective administrative offices. And they wish for there to be only one actual Being Who is God.
With such a wish list, however, the Trinitarian simply has no alternative but to conceive the Deity as a Being comprised of three hypostatic (i.e., inherently essential) modes, three person-like aspects that have being, but do not, individually in themselves, constitute a Being. Simply stated, God consists of three person-like aspects, one of Whom (or rather, of Which) is Christ.
But from this it follows that none of these three, including Christ, is an actual Being. Therefore, as presented in Trinitarianism, Christ is not a Person in the actual sense of the word but a Thing. Specifically, according to such a system, Christ is not, identificationally, God, but is only God, synecdochically speaking (i.e., by near association), the partial Thing being put for the whole Being, or Person. This hardly makes Christ “fully God,” but only (“fully” or otherwise) an aspect of God.
Indeed, the knowledgeable Trinitarian affirms that not only the word “person” but all nouns and pronouns in reference to the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, are not literal (which would make them references to actual Beings), but are “accommodations,” mere anthropomorphisms.Blessings.
The thinker said:
Quote The Greek is “pneuma” and it means that we should not be tossed to and fro by every teaching that comes along including Paladinianism. That is why we do not accept the teaching of the “Trinity”.
Love in Christ,
MartyChosenone's source said:
Quote “The Word” of God in John 1:1 may well have in view not only God’s personified Word, Christ, but His written word as well. In any case, “THE WORD was toward God.” Any sense, then, in which it is correct to say that “the Word was God,” must be compatible with the Word’s being, first of all “toward God.” This fact precludes the Word’s being literally and identificationally God, and entails Its being God only figuratively, in a representative sense. Hence it is simply incorrect to reason that if in John 1:1 Christ is the Word, it follows that He is therein affirmed to be God, in either a literal or absolute sense. To All,
CO's anti-trinitarian source confesses that Jesus is God in the representative sense but denies that He is God in the absolute sense. Would someone please explain the difference this makes? The One who is God in the absolute sense says to me that Jesus is Representative God so honor Him as you do Me.This is the problem with anti-trinitarianism. They reluctantly acknowledge that Christ is Representative God but don't give Him the honor that necessarily goes with that. In practice anti-trinitarians deny that Christ is God in any sense whatsoever.
Anti-trinitarians just don't get it. REPRESENTATIVE GOD IS GOD OR BEING “REPRESENTATIVE” GOD MEANS NOTHING!
thinkerQuote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,09:56) Chosenone's source said: Quote “The Word” of God in John 1:1 may well have in view not only God’s personified Word, Christ, but His written word as well. In any case, “THE WORD was toward God.” Any sense, then, in which it is correct to say that “the Word was God,” must be compatible with the Word’s being, first of all “toward God.” This fact precludes the Word’s being literally and identificationally God, and entails Its being God only figuratively, in a representative sense. Hence it is simply incorrect to reason that if in John 1:1 Christ is the Word, it follows that He is therein affirmed to be God, in either a literal or absolute sense. To All,
CO's anti-trinitarian source confesses that Jesus is God in the representative sense but denies that He is God in the absolute sense. Would someone please explain the difference this makes? The One who is God in the absolute sense says to me that Jesus is Representative God so honor Him as you do Me.This is the problem with anti-trinitarianism. They reluctantly acknowledge that Christ is Representative God but don't give Him the honor that necessarily goes with that. In practice anti-trinitarians deny that Christ is God in any sense whatsoever.
Anti-trinitarians just don't get it. REPRESENTATIVE GOD IS GOD OR BEING “REPRESENTATIVE” GOD MEANS NOTHING!
thinker
Hi thethinker:And so, he is God's Christ, the anointed one, sent by God as His representative, and that is what Phillipians 2:6 is indicating when the scriptures states that “being in the form of God…”, and not that he was in the form of God before he was born into this world.
Hebrew 1 states: Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] SonJesus was sent by God as His representative, and given authority to act in His behalf, but note that he was sent and was given the authority, and therefore, he himself is not God in the sense that you trinitarians are indicating.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Nick Hassan @ July 01 2009,14:43) Hi TT,
1Cor 8 explains it well.
Nick,In 1 Corinthians 8 it says that there is to be one Lord Jesus Christ. However, in the Old Testament God is called Lord over and over again. I guess the Scriptures lie when it says we have one true Lord then.
TC27
Hi TC,
Are you confused because the scribes substituted LORD for YHWH in the OT?If you are reborn into Christ then as Paul says in 1 Cor 8 Jesus is your Lord.
Some hopeful branches like BD try to bypass the vine and serve the Gardener directly.
They will cause themselves to die.
Quote (942767 @ July 02 2009,11:25) Quote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,09:56) Chosenone's source said: Quote “The Word” of God in John 1:1 may well have in view not only God’s personified Word, Christ, but His written word as well. In any case, “THE WORD was toward God.” Any sense, then, in which it is correct to say that “the Word was God,” must be compatible with the Word’s being, first of all “toward God.” This fact precludes the Word’s being literally and identificationally God, and entails Its being God only figuratively, in a representative sense. Hence it is simply incorrect to reason that if in John 1:1 Christ is the Word, it follows that He is therein affirmed to be God, in either a literal or absolute sense. To All,
CO's anti-trinitarian source confesses that Jesus is God in the representative sense but denies that He is God in the absolute sense. Would someone please explain the difference this makes? The One who is God in the absolute sense says to me that Jesus is Representative God so honor Him as you do Me.This is the problem with anti-trinitarianism. They reluctantly acknowledge that Christ is Representative God but don't give Him the honor that necessarily goes with that. In practice anti-trinitarians deny that Christ is God in any sense whatsoever.
Anti-trinitarians just don't get it. REPRESENTATIVE GOD IS GOD OR BEING “REPRESENTATIVE” GOD MEANS NOTHING!
thinker
Hi thethinker:And so, he is God's Christ, the anointed one, sent by God as His representative, and that is what Phillipians 2:6 is indicating when the scriptures states that “being in the form of God…”, and not that he was in the form of God before he was born into this world.
Hebrew 1 states: Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] SonJesus was sent by God as His representative, and given authority to act in His behalf, but note that he was sent and was given the authority, and therefore, he himself is not God in the sense that you trinitarians are indicating.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,
What does it matter? If Christ is Representative God then He is the appointed Sovereign and supreme ruler over you.thinker
Hi TT,
And if Jesus is appointed he is not the Almighty God who appointed him.
The lesser is blessed by the greater[Heb7]Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 02 2009,02:22) Hi TT,
And if Jesus is appointed he is not the Almighty God who appointed him.
The lesser is blessed by the greater[Heb7]
Nick,You use Hebrews 7 to make a point but you fail to read on to verse 27 in Hebrews 7 where it says that he offered himself. If all he was doing was obeying a command from the Lord, how could he have offered himself voluntarily? One who has the authority to offer himself up out of his own free will must be God because no other has that power. If he is only a man doing what God ordered him to do then he did not offer himself up. So your claim that Jesus is not God causes problems here.
TC27
Hi TC,
So the appointed High Priest unto God, offered himself as a sacrifice unto God?
So in what way was he that God?Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 02 2009,11:12) Hi TC,
So the appointed High Priest unto God, offered himself as a sacrifice unto God?
So in what way was he that God?
Nick,All I can tell you is to read Hebrews 7:27. If you cannot see that Christ offered himself as it says then I do not know what to tell you.
TC27
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 02 2009,12:55) Hi TC,
So Jesus was the sacrifice.
So to Whom was he sacrificed?
Nick,In the Old Testament it was the job of the priest to offer up a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people. However, we know that Jesus was the high priest AND the sacrifice. So if Jesus can be both priest and sacrifice, can he not also be God?
TC27
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
